Yesterday, there was an article published in Business Weekly that gives the impression that the EU really cares about the environment, and about the owners of small businesses.

The reality is that the EU cares about neither!

The first point to note is that the £3m supposedly given from the EU is in fact our money - Britain being the 2nd largest contributor to the EU’s budget.

Secondly, the whole Global Warming story is already debunked, and revealed as nothing more than pseudo science, used to enable the ’state’ to exert ever more control over our daily lives.  In other words, there would be better uses for these funds.

Interestingly the ‘Business Weekly‘ article also reveals a high level of co-operation/interaction between the academic world and the unelected Regional Development Agency - the body that has risen Phoenix like from the ashes of the Regional Assembly - many academics having been seduced by financial enticements from the vast educational propaganda budget of the EU: And of course, the Regional Development Agencies only exist to further regionalise England ( split up into easily controlled (by Brussels) regions).

Do read the article below, but do so with the knowledge that you are reading propaganda!

Written by News Desk
Tuesday, 05 August 2008

The East of England’s ERDF concentrates on low-carbon investments. Small firms in the East of England are to benefit from £3 million of European funding to help them go ‘low carbon.’

The first two projects to receive support from the East of England’s £88 million European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will help businesses cut their energy bills and CO2 emissions and match companies up with the right universities to develop low-carbon projects.

The region’s ERDF programme, which has a nationally unique focus on low-carbon economic growth, will also help to drive EU-wide energy reduction targets and the government’s recently published Renewable Energy Strategy.

£2.1 million is going to the Resource Efficiency East (REE) scheme, which will help small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) become both more resource efficient and at the same time more competitive. REE will help businesses to cut their energy bill and carbon emissions and other resources over the next three years giving firms a sharper competitiveness edge.

A further £628,000 will go towards setting up a project to improve the links between academic expertise and innovation in universities across the East of England and regional businesses looking to develop commercially important low carbon technologies and products.

The successful application for funding for the i-10 Low Carbon Transfer project was made by the University of Cambridge on behalf of a group of eleven East of England universities.

This project will include a brand new ‘taster scheme’ to encourage SMEs to engage with academic hubs in higher education institutions for ground-breaking work on low-carbon issues.

David Morrall, European Programmes Director at EEDA, which manages the region’s European Regional Development Fund, said: “The new £3 million of funding in the region, the first two grants made under the ERDF programme, will help small businesses go ‘low carbon’. The funding will take forward the plans in the government’s recent Renewable Energy Strategy.

“Both the REE and i-10 projects represent innovative ways of developing regional businesses through low-carbon initiatives. I look forward to seeing the fruits of these schemes and to EEDA supporting many similar projects across the region in the coming months.”

Source

A great many farmers are up in arms over legislation being prepared by the EU Commission that seeks to slash the number of pesticides used in agriculture, to reduce what it sees as potential threats to human health in particular and to the environment in general. Now Land & People is all for the expansion of organic growing and the reduction, as far as is reasonably practical, of the use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in British agriculture.

However, although we accept that the EU Commission may be acting with good intentions, the fact is that this initiative is likely to make the situation even worse, whilst disadvantaging the British producer into the bargain. We’ll now explain why.

Firstly, a reduction in the use of sprays is almost certainly going to result in reduced crop yields per acre �“ this being particularly true as far as potato, brassica and cereal production is concerned. This, in turn, will reduce farm incomes �“ which is no light matter bearing in mind the number of smaller farms, in particular, that are barely breaking even these days. Some farms, but certainly not all, will be able to increase their acreage under cultivation to make up for some of the loss �“ even though this will, in itself, incur further costs in terms of extra fertiliser and diesel.

Secondly, with less productive harvests, the law of supply and demand is likely to kick in with a vengeance. The deficit created through reduced yields will create a vacuum in the market that will be filled with cheap imported produce �“ something further undermining the viability of our producers!

Thirdly, and here’s the rub, imported produce �“ unlike our British produce �“ will, most likely, have been grown with little or no restrictions on the use of chemical sprays. In other words, the public’s exposure to sprayed produce is likely to increase, rather than decrease. Not exactly what is intended we would suggest!

Lastly, the EU Commission’s proposals will be enforced right across the community we are told. But we all know what that means �“ we only have to look at the “enforcement” of fisheries legislation. Whereas a succession of British governments have vigorously policed the rules, the governments of other countries �“ Spain and Italy spring immediately to mind �“ cannot be said to have displayed the same enthusiasm. Now whereas we can guarantee that Brown’s Labour regime in Westminster will enforce every petty fobbing rule to the letter �“ can the same be said of the Slovak, Polish or Rumanian governments in respect of their producers? Of course not and once again the British producer will not only be shafted by unfair Third World competition but also by our supposed “partners” with the EU.

As an aside, Land & People believes the EU Commission’s approach to this issue to be fundamentally flawed. We believe they are applying the wrong yardstick in addressing this issue. Their yardstick is that of “hazard” �“ not that of “risk” - as we would advocate. To explain what we mean consider this:-

A cigarette is hazardous in that it contains a whole raft of carcinogenic and other harmful chemical compounds. However the risk is in the usage. All things being equal, the one cigarette per day man is at considerably less risk than the forty per day man! The hazard for each man is the same - but the risks are entirely different.

It is therefore our opinion that the reduction of chemical spray use in agriculture, which we believe is entirely desirable, should be undertaken in the light of studies that evaluate risk rather than hazard, and implemented in a staged way that neither disadvantages the British producer, nor denies him the time to adapt �“ whilst protecting the consumer from the “chemical-warfare” agricultural produce of less discerning lands.

Yes, let’s rid agriculture of as many chemicals as we reasonably can �“ but let’s not destroy the British producer in the process!

As matters stand, should the EU Commission implement this legislation then we are likely to see the British market flooded with cheaper Third World and Eastern European produce, over which there has been little or no control as far as the application of sprays are concerned.

Does that make any sense at all?

This report from the EU Referendum Blog lays out in stark detail the dangers that lie before us all.

=============================
EUREFERENDUM Blog 3.8.08

Energy: a choice of policies

It is interesting to see, at last, some of the MSM catching up with the implications of the growing energy crisis, not least The Daily Mail which had a robust leaders on the subject yesterday.

Rehearsing issues familiar to our readers, this paper declared: “One of the first duties of any government is to ensure that the lights stay on and the wheels keep turning.” It then added: “It is no exaggeration to say that energy is as important as the armed forces or the police. Without one, you can’t deploy the others.”

This was a welcome statement. As one of the few UK political blogs to be banging the drum about the coming energy shortage, we sometimes wonder whether, as a voice in the semi-wilderness, we are getting things out of perspective. The Daily Mail, in that context, offered some reassurance.

In fact, though, it did not go far enough. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the effects of a major power crisis on the policies and activities of this country.

For instance, much has been written about the housing crisis, and the increasing difficulty in obtaining mortgages. Not least of the problems is that mortgage companies have long ceased offering 100 percent (and higher) mortgages and are now requiring substantial deposits amounting to tens of thousands of pounds.
With our ability to provide sufficient energy to both domestic and industrial consumers teetering perilously close to disaster, it truly beggars belief that the governing party, and the ‘official opposition’, seem blind to the danger. Preferring instead to score political points off of each other.

For those who are trying to save such sums, the erosion of their incomes by higher energy bills can only have a deleterious effect which, over term, can only delay (or even prevent) the recovery of the housing market.

If this is just one instance, look to other policy areas which the Conservative Party holds dear. Education would be a good start, where one can ask what the effects of higher energy prices might have on already stretched school budgets. What happens to plans for improvements when increasing sums are absorbed by the need just to keep schools heated and lit?

That, though, does not even begin to factor in the broader implications. If, as is widely anticipated, we do start seeing serious shortfalls in capacity which lead to power cuts, education suffers in a more direct way as children are sent home �“ perhaps for prolonged periods as their schools are deprived of power.

Many other examples can be given of the profound impact of electricity shortages but it is as well to remember that, long before we experience universal power cuts, the utilities will already be taking steps to deal with the problem.

Amongst these will be a rolling programme of load shedding, cutting supplies to large industrial and commercial users, as a means of keeping the home lights burning. This, over term, will have a major economic impact as production suffers, wages are cut, profits slashed, tax payments evaporate and unemployment soars.

For good reason, therefore, The Mail calls for urgent action �“ but we know that in the dying days of a discredited and intellectually bankrupt government, this is not going to materialise. Having neglected energy policy for eleven years, this fag-end of a Labour regime is not suddenly going to pull itself together and produce a workable policy.

More ominously, for New Labour, there are selfish and highly partisan reasons why it should not deliver. Given that the overwhelming odds are that it will lose the next election, ceding to the Conservatives, the focus is on seeking to ensure that the first term of the new government is the only one, to which effect, the worse a mess it inherits, the better.

As did New Labour benefit from the economic policies put in place by the preceding Conservative administration, Labour strategists can see value in engineering a reverse situation, whereby the Tories are saddled with major problems, putting them on the back foot and forcing them onto the defensive. A major energy crisis would be a highly effective means of achieving this.

In the run up to the election, therefore, the Conservatives should be expecting their rivals to be seeding the political terrain with minefields and booby traps, all carefully designed to maximise the stresses on the new administration. Not least of these, of course, is Mr Brown’s windmill programme which industry insiders readily admit is unachievable �“ yet it is Mr Cameron who will be blamed for the failure.

With two years to run before Brown finally goes to the country, there is plenty of scope for more mischief, but that does not mean that the Conservatives can do nothing. The most obvious political antidote is to call out the government, making it plain that the fundamentals of its policy are flawed. The next thing that must be done is the production of a sound energy policy.

Here, there is an interesting political dynamic. Tory strategists currently are unwilling to roll out policies for fear that Labour will themselves adopt them. But there should be no such problem with energy. Such is the long lead time required to turn the policy round that anything of any importance that is now proposed will fall to the new administration to deliver.

However, therein lies the greater political problem. Although the Taxpayers Alliance asserts that the Conservative Party has “seems to have learned its lesson” from its over-enthusiastic embrace of green policies, there is actually no evidence as yet that this will bleed into energy policies.

More worrying is the fact that there is no evidence that the Tories have even woken up to the scale of the coming crisis or have even begun to formulate a sensible response. All we have to go on is a badly-phrased and weak statement - entirely lacking in detail - from shadow energy minister, Charles Hendry, which pledges only that he will strive “…to come up with the best policies for the UK and its future security.”

Even The Daily Telegraph seems to be losing patience with this laid-back approach, declaring in its own leader yesterday that, “The Conservatives, who have finally ditched their naive view of nuclear power as ‘a last resort’, should start publicly championing new nuclear generation, both for its green credentials and as the only way to stop the lights going out.”

The trouble is that it is not as simple as that. The Mail itself notes that in 2006 this Labour government turned it back on British expertise in the nuclear field by selling Westinghouse, our one major nuclear engineering firm, to the Japanese for a knockdown £2.8billion. This puts us in the situation of having to rely on foreign expertise and is one of the reasons why the EDF deal was so important. Before even the deal collapsed, we were drinking in the last chance saloon and “time” has now been called.

What few people seem to realise is that the nuclear industry is undergoing a resurgence in terms of orders. Plans are already in hand, world-wide, to build as many as 50 new reactors by 2020. But, after decade of neglect, there is no longer the industrial capacity to meet demand. As the Energy Policy Blog points out, only a handful of companies are capable of manufacturing the highly specialised components of reactors and pressurised vessels.

As orders pile up, the waiting list for deliveries is getting longer and, with a growing number of US utilities lining up to build nuclear power plants, experts reckon completion times would stretch from 2015 to 2020. And that assumes no major regulatory or licensing hurdles.

Taking a realistic view of our current predicament, new nuclear plants are not, as The Telegraph avers, “the only way to stop the lights going out.” In the short to medium-term they are no answer at all. There is simply not enough time to bring the capacity on stream.

However, relying on gas for the “quick fix” is the route to disaster. Although natural gas prices might have currently stabilised �“ owing to a recent slackening of demand - in the longer term demand is expected to expand substantially, driving up prices to unsustainable levels. For increasing numbers, electricity and heating might become an unaffordable luxury, driving hundreds of thousands more into poverty and wrecking the economy as the balance of payments deficit soars.

Any Conservative government must, therefore, look to a solution in the short to medium term which lies outside either new-build nuclear or gas plants. Nor are renewables a solution, as recently emphasised by E. on’s Paul Golby. For relief, we must look elsewhere.

Golby, in fact, suggests a mixture of nuclear, renewables and coal, but the reason new plant is so urgently needed is because we are shortly to lose a third of our generating capacity through the combined effects of the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive and the retirement of our ageing nuclear plants.

The short-term answer, therefore, is obvious. The plants which are to be closed by the EU must remain open, at least until replacements are assured. And, if that means confronting the EU, so be it. If Mr Cameron wishes to prove his eurosceptic credentials, there is no better issue over which to drawn the line.

Of course, there may be scope for renegotiating the timescale, as other EU member states are in the same mess with their energy policies, but utilities need notice if they are to delay the wind-down of the plants scheduled for closure, otherwise the wind-down may be too far gone to arrest.

Secondly, the industry must be encouraged, by whatever means necessary, to invest in a major life extension programme for the existing nuclear plants �“ which are due for closure by 2015. This again needs to be signalled well in advance as the earlier the decision is taken, the easier it will be to spread the not insubstantial costs.

Thirdly, reliance on imported coal must be reduced �“ if not eliminated. Demand for coal world-wide is increasing, leading to a substantial hike in prices, which means that such reliance will incur a substantial cost penalty. As of last year, the UK consumed 62.7 million tons of coal, of which 52.4 million tons was used for electricity generation.

Yet, while known UK reserves of coal are sufficient to last 200 years or more at current rates of consumption, the British coal industry actually produced 17 million tons last year (with 2.9 million tons lifted from stock) and imported 43.3 million tons. Of this, 22 million tons came from Russia and 12 million tons from South Africa. Supplies were also obtained from Colombia, Australia, Indonesia and the United States while 852,000 tons were imported from Poland, 46,000 tons from Spain and 41,000 tons from Germany.

That signals a fourth element to a rational energy policy. Clearly, there must be a significant policy shift towards support for indigenous coal production, followed by a switch from gas-fuelled plants back to burning coal for electricity generation.

To pursue these four solutions, however, it is essential that the regulatory framework and the matrix of financial penalties and incentives must be drastically revised - the fifth leg of a new policy. As it stands, through the EU’s emission trading scheme (ETS), the climate levy and the renewables obligation certificate (ROC) scheme (as well as the Large Combustion Plants Directive), the use of coal and nuclear energy is penalised, while renewables are actively encouraged with huge financial incentives.

Pulling out of the ETS, ending the ROCs and the climate change levy, redirecting that income into funding generation capacity and developing indigenous would, by 2013, liberate over £5 billion a year without adding to energy costs.

That, in effect, dictates (or should dictate) the direction of future energy policy. Currently blighted by the obsession with climate change, both energy security and supply have taken the back seat. What the Conservatives need to do, therefore, is redress the balance, putting security and supply first.

Furthermore, a highly desirable outcome would be to put a new government directly in conflict with the EU’s climate change programme, not least because it would necessarily mean that the 20 percent renewables target would have been abandoned. That would be another test of Mr Cameron’s euroscepticism �“ to say nothing of evidence of a more “pragmatic” approach to green issues.

Of course, this would provoke the global warmist fraternity and the rabid eco-warriors into a frenzy. But, given the choice between expensive and wholly irrelevant measures aimed at addressing global warming �“ especially following a few bad winters �“ and the assurance of continuous electricity supplies, the odds are that the large majority of British voters would opt for the latter.

The alternative for Mr Cameron would be the prospect, in the not too distant future, of standing at the despatch box explaining to the nation why the lights have gone out and why it is that there is nothing he or his government can do about it. In electoral and practical terms, the choice is a no-brainer.
——————————-

There can be no doubt that few things are more essential to our everyday lives than food.

Unfortunately not enough people are asking themselves whether they can trust the food they eat. The politicians and food industry spokesmen tell us that the chemicals, growth hormones, additives and antibiotics the food industry insists on adulterating our food with is both “essential” and “good for us”! In addition, those who campaign for wholesome food and especially against GM products, are ridiculed as being “misinformed” or “backward looking”!

The British National Party believes the road ahead is for a return to unadulterated organic food, food we can trust. In particular we want a GM-free Britain and a return to proven organic production methods as far as is practically posible. During the last decade the quantity of organic food produced in Europe has gone up five fold, so clearly there is a demand for real food in this country of ours. Unfortunately the Government has done little to encourage British producers to expand organic production �“ this despite our country having one of the largest markets for organic produce in the Western World. It is a sad fact that less than half of the organic food we eat is actually homegrown. The British National Party will promote real food over the processed and adulterated variety, and encourage food producers to meet the resulting growing demand for real food, at an affordable price to the consumer.

Furthermore, British Nationalists advocate proper and prominent labelling on food packaging. We believe the consumer has a right to know what they are being sold, so that they are better equipped to decide for themselves whether they want to buy it.

In addition, as part of our drive for a return to real food, British Nationalists advocate a major expansion in the provision of the traditional allotment �“ this being a facility that has served both families and communities well for many decades.

British Nationalists also believe that the British public, by and large, care - as we do - about the treatment of animals. We believe that farm animals have a right not to suffer, and our stand against intensive factory production lines promotes respect and compassion in farming. Furthermore, British Nationalists, unlike the so-called “Green” Party, are opposed to the most prolific form of animal cruelty practised in Britain today �“ that of the cruel and barbaric slow-death ritual slaughter of millions of our farm animals every year - for no other reason than to appease the theological dogma of certain religious groups.

The British National Party believes in local family owned shops selling the wholesome produce of local family owned farms and allotments, at affordable prices, to local people.

Hence our stance that as far as is possible food should be grown locally, for sale in local shops and markets, to local people. We see little value in chemically grown produce that has been transported thousands of polluting miles to reach the consumer - it’s time to rediscover real food and to refocus our farming industry into fulfilling that need.

Imagine, if you will, the casualty department of a city centre hospital. Also imagine a badly fitted paving slab located immediately outside its entrance. Now visualize a steady stream of injured pedestrians, nursing bruised knees and gashed elbows, seeking treatment within - having failed to successfully negotiate the offending item of “road-ware”. Finally, try to get your mind around this - the manager of said casualty department, fed up with the situation, puts pen to paper, to write to his local Health Authority in despair. Bizarrely he ignores the paving slab and, instead, implores them to build him a new and larger casualty department - so that he may be better equipped to cope with the increased workload arising from a never-ending stream of injured pedestrians!

Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But unfortunately this analogy is not that wide of the mark! Let’s explain:

A couple of years ago it was reported in the Guardian newspaper that a well known environmentalist organisation, whom we’ll not mention to save them embarrassment, had written to the then prime minister, Tony Blair. The letter urged Blair to make dramatic changes to the Government’s house building plans, so as to avoid urban sprawl in Britain’s countryside. In addition the organisation concerned was also reported as requesting that the Government increase its stated target for development, on brownfield land, from 60% to 75%”.

To elaborate further, this leading environmentalist organisation wanted the Labour Government to increase building densities in London and the South East to at least 80 homes per hectare, from the present 30 to 50 �“ in order to “protect our countryside from the effects of urban sprawl”

We repeat �“ “to protect our countryside from the effects of urban sprawl!”

Here we have, in real life, the equivalent of the manager of our fictitious casualty department! No mention of the cause of the problem �“ you will note - just a request for more building to cope with the symptoms of the problem.

One would have imagined that a serious organisation claiming environmentalist credentials would be campaigning against the cause of the problem �“ not pussyfooting around tinkering with its effects.

One would also have imagined that a serious organisation claiming environmentalist credentials would be asking why the population of London and the South East region is rising so quickly?

As it is ludicrous to suggest that the organisation concerned is unaware that immigration is the prime cause of the overpopulation that’s wrecking the South East of England - in particular �“ then we must ask why it is that they are determined not to recognise the obvious link between immigration and overpopulation?

Can it really be that these so-called “mainstream” environmentalists are prepared to sacrifice our precious and irreplaceable environment on the altar of political correctness in furtherance of the worship of a false god, the idol known as multiculturalism?

Land & People says its time this idol was cast down, that the disciples of multiculturalism were exorcised from the environmentalist congregation, and that we campaigned for the protection of rural England from the ravages of immigration fuelled overpopulation. Amen to that.

Without a doubt the biggest single controllable threat to our environment is that of overpopulation. Indeed England is one of the most crowded places on the face of the earth and getting more crowded by the day. Fuelling overpopulation, as the Government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) will verify, is immigration. If it were not for half a century’s worth of immigration, then our population would be considerably smaller than it is today. Yet as overcrowded as we already are on this tiny island, things are going to get even tighter �“ much tighter in fact!

According to the experts, the Government �“ with the backing of the Tory opposition - plans to allow around another six million migrants into Britain over the next twenty years �“ which is why, of course, Labour needs the three million new homes it is currently attempting to force local authorities to grant planning permission for across the country!

This planned boost to overpopulation, being despite the detrimental affect immigration is already having on housing, employment, education, heath services, social services and law enforcement �“ and lets not even start on exasperating the demand for more water provision, energy generation, sewerage treatment and rubbish disposal!

So it comes as something of a surprise to learn that “mainstream”, so-called, “environmentalists” aren’t clamouring for a halt to immigration to safeguard what remains of our countryside and environment! You will see them protesting about the symptoms �“ a housing development on green field sites �“ but you will never see them protesting about the cause �“ far less actually campaigning for an end to this �“ the greatest controllable threat imaginable to our environment.

The problem is, you see, that “mainstream” environmentalists are caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one horn they know immigration is the driving motor behind the overpopulation that is wrecking our countryside and reducing the quality of life for everyone. But on the other horn they are conditioned to believing that opposition to immigration is “racist” and should they oppose it, then they will be �“ racists! Far safer then to enter a self imposed state of denial and engage in a limitation exercise campaigning against the symptoms than to be seen as unacceptably politically incorrect by recognising and addressing the real issue!

As an example of what we at Land & People mean, we invite you to visit the web site of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and there to do a site search using the key word “immigration”. The CPRE remember, is one of the largest and most influential “mainstream” environmentalist groups in the country �“ yet a search of their website produces just 1 (one) find for any article mentioning the word “immigration”! That, we believe, speaks volumes for their credibility as serious environmentalists!

Concern has been raised in southern England after permission to drill for oil was granted to a petroleum company on the South Downs. Environmental groups are angry that the local council is allowing such a development on a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.

West Sussex County Council granted permission earlier this year for Northern Petroleum to sink a test well in Markwells Wood, an ancient woodland outside the village of Forestside, near Chichester. The company reportedly became interested in drilling in the area after oil prices started to soar.

Conservation groups opposed to the plans claim that the drilling - which will destroy over two acres of woodland in an area which is likely to become part of the South Downs National Park - amounts to an act of environmental vandalism. But the council, contrary to its own ecologist and landscape officers objecting to the scheme, decided that the application met all legal requirements and approved it on the understanding that the company will replace and enhance the woodland when it has finished working on the site.

Notice the use of the word “understanding” - rather than “obligation”!

A spokesman for the Woodland Trust, said: “This is in ancient woodland which we consider to be irreplaceable. It’s our richest habitat for species in the UK and we would consider it as the equivalent, in terms of importance, to a rainforest.”

Meanwhile a director of Friends of the Earth, added: “This application is a further symptom of our dependence on dwindling oil resources. Sooner or later we must wean our society off oil and the quicker we do so the better.”

In addition, a director for the South Downs Society, an environmental pressure group, said: “The damage to habitat, destruction of trees and hedgerows, the visual impact of the drilling tower and its lighting, construction of a new access through the wood, noise from vehicles: all of this is inappropriate in the Downs, where people go for peace and quiet.”

Yet despite the comments of respected environmentalists, a spokesman for West Sussex County Council is quoted as saying that the area was not as important as some were making out. “Technically it is ancient woodland, but to look at it you would not regard it as a very important piece of land,” he said.

“We granted permission for oil to be drilled for two reasons: one is that there is a national policy in favour of extracting minerals from the earth where we have them; and secondly because we have struck a deal with the company which will actually see the area of woodland improved when they are finished.”

The construction of the 120-feet high exploration rig will involve clearance of part of the wood and the building of a temporary access road and will take three months. Northern Petroleum has temporary consent for construction, drilling and testing for a period of three years, but they will need consent to remove the reserves if enough oil is found.

What happens next, if commercially viable quantities of oil are found, is anyone’s guess!

Yet it is no secret that the oil beneath the North Sea is becoming increasingly expensive to extract. In 2006, Britain changed from being a net exporter of oil to a net importer. Last year, the country produced 1.8 million barrels a day but used more and so had to import 145,000 barrels daily. This year, it is expected that the production rate will drop to 1.5m barrels a day and so 310,000 barrels will have to be imported. This means that the country is now spending £3bn a year on importing oil, compared to earning £3bn a year from exports, as it was in 2001.

Land & People concurs with those who believe that even if oil is found in commercial quantities, the likely effect on South Downs habitats - together with the likely short life of any such enterprise, gives rise to the question: “is it worth it”? We suspect not!

“ECO-TOWNS: what an oxymoron is that! How can a new town be ecologically friendly when it is built on a green field site which entails concreting over large areas of the countryside and destroying natural habitat?” asks Sally Wood in her Straight Talking column in the June issue of Freedom, the British National Party’s monthly newspaper.

Sally continues:

You only have to think of all the additional traffic and congestion it will generate, free to spew pollutants into the air.

Take the small village of Micheldever in the North Hampshire Downs. Here in this delightful rural landscape of rolling hills and wooded copse: home to owls, bats and a rare pair of stone curlews, Eagle Star Insurance have plans to concrete over it and construct one of these new eco-towns.

Another eco-town is proposed near Couldwell and Roslington in South Derbyshire. Bank Development are planning a 5,700 unit settlement which will entail the felling of national forest trees and a new road to feed its new eco-town of ‘Grovewood’. How eco-friendly is that!

It appears that 40% of these homes are to be affordable housing, but for whom?

The English are simply not replacing themselves, but they are now fleeing our ever increasingly crime-ridden cities to be replaced there by economic migrants. Surely if these economic migrants were told to stay in their own countries their carbon footprint would be lower, and that has to be good for the planet.

From every angle these eco-towns can only be an eco-disaster.

ALLOTMENT WANTED!

ONE of my earliest memories is of peering through railings at an elderly neighbour tending his plot in the allotments at the end of my road in South London.

I still think of that today when I flash passed in the train and spot the same site. The allotments have long since disappeared only to be replaced by an ugly block of flats with a garish mural which adorns the entire flank wall. It seems like something from another country.

Where I live now there was much consternation when the Liberal Democrats, who ran the Council at that time and who are always keen to proclaim their green credentials, decided to allow a Housing Association development on the nearby allotments. Since then many of the council houses in our area have become occupied by Eastern Europeans and others from overseas. When I recently tried to put my name down for an allotment on the sole remaining site I was told there was a waiting list of at least forty people before me and I could be given no indication as to when I was likely to reach the top of the list. Prepare to put your name down when young if you wish to get one in this lifetime!

With the United States now converting a fifth of its corn to ethanol to provide approximately 3-4% of the fuel needed to run its cars and trucks, the price of food worldwide has rocketed. Coupled with that, the droughts in Australia and China have resulted in a shortage of rice which has caused some countries to cease exporting rice completely for fear of food riots.

Britain was last self sufficient in grain, meat and dairy in the 1830’s and today self-sufficiency stands at only 60%, which makes us particularly vulnerable to a decline in food imports. During the last war when this was of concern, ten percent of our food was produced from gardens and allotments. It is hard to imagine such a figure could be reached today especially as many gardens in urban areas are now housing developments having been designated as ‘brownfield sites’.

As for that allotment . . . look around for one and you could well look in vain, for where it used to be you may find instead an ugly block of flats housing people from other lands and giving us the responsibility of all those additional mouths to feed.

It is reported that China’s carbon emissions are now well ahead of the US. Recent figures reveal China is now the world’s largest producer of the claimed global warming gas. The statistics reveal that Chinese produced carbon dioxide pollution increased by 8% in 2007 and was responsible for two-thirds of the year’s total increase in global CO2 emissions, according to experts at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment.

It is claimed that cement production, needed to meet China’s demand for infrastructure, to support its booming economy, was a significant factor. Indeed, half of all global cement production now takes place in China, and the industry is responsible for a fifth of Chinese CO2. Rebuilding roads and homes after the Sichuan province earthquake is expected to increase demand further.

According to the published figures, China is now responsible for 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions, followed by the US with 22%. The EU produces 12%, India 8% and the Russian Federation 6%.

On a “per head of population” basis, China lags far behind the US, which remains the biggest polluter per person by a large margin. Whilst US citizens produce an average of 19.4 tonnes of CO2 each year - those in China produce just 5.1 tonnes each. The figures also show that iRussians produce 11.8 tonnes each, the agency says, with the figure for the EU at 8.6 tonnes, and India just 1.8 tonnes per person.

The Dutch research team used new data on worldwide energy consumption and cement production in 2007 prepared by the oil giant BP. Last year, the same team surprised analysts when it said that China had already overtaken the US as chief producer of CO2.

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.