Archive for the ‘Disturbed Politics’ Category

70%, 60%

June 22, 2013

***Updated July 6th***

A highly distressing new report from Friends of the Earth Europe: ‘Weed killer found in human urine across Europe‘. If you live in the UK there’s a 70% chance that you have Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, in your body. What’s it doing to you while it’s in there? How long does it stay? How can you get rid of it or at least build up a personal resistance as the superweeds have done? Answers to these questions are not available because of the usual industry-sponsored silence.

I definitely have it in me because we carry it around in the back of our work van all week (garden maintenance). I’ve refused to use it personally but my coworkers aren’t so scrupulous. I’ve worked on a Roundup-sprayed driveway at least once, suffering mild headaches, dulled awareness and difficulty engaging with the outside world for a number of hours afterward. (I figure I’m basically a plant person now so it’s bound to affect me more than the average post-industrial human being…) One of my colleagues has developed the recent worrying tendency of suggesting we reach for the weed-killer when this proves more economical for our time than weeding by hand, although the cost of the chemical – in more ways than one – gets passed on to the client. They responded to news of this recent report with tangential comments about the safety of drinking water, ignoring the threat sitting right there, a few feet away. I really don’t want to be around when they commit these atrocities, if I can’t first persuade them to not do it. My boss, who has previously worked with Monsanto and accepts their safety claims at face value, is broadly sympathetic to my decision (he doesn’t spray it on his own garden, possibly in part because of the concerns I’ve expressed) but insists that the herbicide has a place in the service we provide, again for economic reasons when it’s cheaper to do the requested work that way, eg: clearing weeds [sic] off driveways, patios etc.

Anyway I recommend reading through some of the different pdf sections via the above link to educate yourself a little about this chemical and the corporations pushing it on you. It’s not just direct contact you have to worry about. As they say, ‘All volunteers who gave samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run up to the tests’ and:

Once applied, glyphosate and its break down products are transported throughout the plant into the leaves, grains or fruit [5]. They cannot be removed by washing, and they are not broken down by cooking [6]. Glyphosate residues can remain stable in foods for a year or more, even if the foods are frozen, dried or processed [7]. (‘Human contamination by glyphosate‘ – pdf)

Even if you’ve found a way to avoid ingesting GM foods you’re probably not safe thanks to an insane practice used by farmers called ‘dessication’:

glyphosate-containing herbicides may be sprayed just before harvest onto non-GM cereals, pulses, sunflowers and oilseed crops. This is done to remove weeds and dry out the grains (ibid.)

ie: to kill the plant and pump it full of poison just before it gets isolated from the environment and passed on for consumption by humans. Genius.

But it’s not all about us of course. I found the ‘environmental impacts of glyphosate‘ (pdf) to be the most harrowing read. Turns out that, contrary to Monsanto’s lies*, glyphosate does not biodegrade, stay where you put it, cause no harm to mammals, birds, fish, pets, children, gardeners… In fact it fucks up the lives, lifecycles, hormones, body development and ecological feeder relationships of birds, butterflies, frogs, fish, mussels, invertebrate insects, ocean- and river-dwelling microfauna, and, of course, plants – ‘undesirable’ or otherwise. Anything it touches, basically. Read this and weep, made especially compelling after the recent news that 60% of species in the UK are in decline:

Common weeds can be important food sources for insect, bird and animal species in agricultural areas. Weeds provide food and nectar sources for insects, which in turn feed birds. Weed seeds can also be vital winter foods for many declining bird species, such as corn bunting and skylarkxxxi. Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) of GM crops in the UK between 1999 and 2003, examined the number of weeds and their seed production in non-GM intensively-managed sugar beet fields, compared with those in GM glyphosate resistant sugar beet cropsxxxii. The results showed a significant loss of weeds and weed seeds in the GM glyphosate resistant sugar beet, compared to the conventional crop. The UK government’s scientific advisory committee spelled out the significance of the results, stating that ‘if [GM glyphosate resistant] beet were to be grown and managed as in the FSEs this would result in adverse effects on arable weed populations [which] would be likely to result in adverse effects on organisms at higher trophic levels (e.g. farmland birds), compared with conventionally managed beet.’xxxiii

A follow-up modelling project concluded that the effects of GM glyphosate resistant crops could affect different species, depending on their feeding and life cycle requirements. The authors noted that, in the results of their model, “Skylarks showed very little response to the introduction of GMHT rape. By contrast, the consequences of introducing GMHT sugar beet were extremely severe, with a rapid decline, and extinction of the skylark within 20 years. This contrasts with the cirl [sic] bunting, which showed little response to the introduction of GMHT beet, but severe consequences arose as a result of the use of GMHT rape”xxxiv.

Join the dots, people.

I think I’m going to start wearing a black armband with the extinction symbol on it:

Extinction Symbol

Otherwise, I believe the roots of dock, dandelion and burdock are the place to go to get support for an overloaded liver and kidneys. But I consider it insufficient to merely adapt to the new toxic status quo in this way. What I’d like to see is the toxic behaviour of Monsanto et al cut off at the source so the planet no longer has to deal with the cascading negative effects of their appalling chemical weapons in the first place. Here’s a petition for starters, but I don’t think it’ll be enough on its own.

Oh, and this is what happens after long-term exposure to Roundup and/or Roundup-Ready GM crops (industry regulations only required a 90-day trial):

GM corn fed rats with cancer tumors during study headed by French biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini‘One of the rats fed GM maize NK603 for two years. The animal has developed an abdominal cancer tumour. Photograph: Tous des cobayes/J+B Sequences’ – source

In a peer-reviewed US journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, [Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen university in France] reported the results of a €3.2m study. Fed a diet of Monsanto’s Roundup-tolerant GM maize NK603 for two years, or exposed to Roundup over the same period, rats developed higher levels of cancers and died earlier than controls. Séralini suggested that the results could be explained by the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, and overexpression of the transgene in the GMO.

Less toxic than table salt my arse.

—————————

* – A brief reminder of the claims made in adverts which a New York attorney forced Monsanto to pull back in 1996 – exhibits A through J:

a) Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is biodegradable. It won’t build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with confidence along customers’ driveways, sidewalks and fences …

b) And remember that Roundup is biodegradable and won’t build up in the soil. That will give you the environmental confidence you need to use Roundup everywhere you’ve got a weed, brush, edging or trimming problem.

c) Roundup — biodegrades into naturally occurring elements.

d) Remember that versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put it. That means there’s no washing or leaching to harm customers’ shrubs or other desirable vegetation.

e) This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It … stays where you apply it.

f) You can apply Accord with … confidence because it will stay where you put it … it bonds tightly to soil particles, preventing leaching. Then, soon after application, soil microorganisms biodegrade Accord into natural products.

g) Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute oral ingestion.

h) Glyphosate’s safety margin is much greater than required. It has over a 1,000-fold safety margin in food and over a 700-fold safety margin for workers who manufacture it or use it.

i) You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They carry a toxicity category rating of ‘practically non-toxic’ as it pertains to mammals, birds and fish.

j) “Roundup can be used where kids and pets’ll play and breaks down into natural material.” This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and a pet dog standing in an area which has been treated with Roundup. (link)

—————————

UPDATE:

I portrayed my boss too generously. Weedkiller came up in conversation between us during a lunch break and I mentioned this report and its main findings. At first he wanted to know, reasonably enough, what concentration of glyphosate the research found in peoples’ urine. I didn’t know at the time but went away and looked into it (results below) and may pass on my findings at some point. But after a short spell of silence I was treated to a barrage of denial, justification and misdirection. Highlights included ignorant smears against FoE (a leftist conspiracy against Monsanto: “They’re like a dog with a bone”, “They’re anti-business”, “They hate success”), evidence-free assertions that glyphosate isn’t as bad as some of the other chemicals out there (“I’m sure there are much worse things on my driveway”, “What about all the petrol fumes and machine oils?”), strong implications that there’s nothing you can do about it and you just have to accept & cope with it as best you can, blaming consumers for demanding cheap food with disregard for the consequences (an old disagreement – I think the manufacturing processes call the tune and people adjust their habits accordingly, largely because they have no choice. If it’s all demand driven why the need for so much advertising?) and reiterating the supposed economic imperative of the company needing to use Roundup because “If we don’t someone else will – they will get the work and we will lose out”.

I couldn’t think of any way to respond productively to all this, so I did my usual bit of listening while The Man With Experience lays out The Story of  How Things Are, while making a conscious effort to keep it at arms length and not internalise it all automatically, reserving my own conclusions for a later date. For now, apart from having the usual Upton Sinclair quote ringing in my ears (‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it’) I’m thinking this ‘If not me someone else – but worse’ is a bullshit excuse that has probably been used by every tyrant and holocaust-facilitator in history. But what’s the truly responsible course of action? Personal boycotts might be morally satisfying but they don’t really have an effect on the system as a whole unless coordinated and specifically targeted (so why not conspire against Monsanto :D ). Otherwise I think it’s broadly true that you just take yourself out of the competition, leaving another to take what would have been your share. You may not consider it to be worth taking in the first place, but that’s irrelevant if your concern lies with how things play out in the bigger picture. My unscrupulous colleague has more earning potential than me by not ‘turning down work’ in this way. One day this may be the crucial difference between us if the boss decides to lay one of us off. Whatever happens those driveways will continue to get sprayed in the meantime…

Maybe the answer lies in talking to the clients and wider public, ensuring this information gets out to them and perhaps persuading them to change their habits. Comparing the garden sheds of older and younger generations offers some hope – you often find a massive cocktail of lethal, long-expired chemicals in older sheds and much less in the younger ones, indicating a growing distrust of these industrial poisons and a greater inclination towards organic principles. But then, if this process of change is in reality driven by manufacturing practices and mass PR indoctrination rather than consumer demand, appeals to reason and emotion might not cut it. Answers on a postcard as usual!

Here’s the stuff on urine concentration:

***

Having checked out the original paper, I see that, of the ten samples from the UK, seven had a level of glyphosate higher than 0.15μg per litre of urine (the ‘Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)’ below which the chemical is apparently considered to not be present) – hence the 70% detection rate, which could actually be 100% as far as I can make out. The mean average is 0.47μg/L, second only to Malta at 0.82μg/L, with the lowest averages coming from Switzerland, Macedonia and Hungaria at 0.09μg/L. There were two UK results over 1μg/L with the highest coming in at 1.64μg/L, second only to the unfortunate individual from Latvia with 1.82μg/L (see table 4 on p.12). The paper gives a ‘reference value’ of 0.8μg/L but I don’t understand what this is meant to indicate and can’t make head or tail of their explanation:

The reference values for Glyphosate and AMPA are only tentative. They were derived from an urban collective (n=90) and are defined as the 95. percentile of the measured values. They were established by Medical Laboratory Bremen in 2012 during the process of the method validation. Strictly speaking they are only valid to the region of Bremen.

Any enlightening comments from someone from a more scientific background much appreciated! It doesn’t seem like regulators have decided on a ‘safe’ level of glyphosate in human urine. The main focus (and controversy) revolves around something Orwellian called ‘Acceptable Daily Intake’ relative to the total body weight rather than the fluid content of urine. In the EU this has been set at 0.3 mg  per kg of body weight (mg = 1000x greater than μg) but there is a stink about the way in which they arrived at this figure – from the FoE report, ‘Concerns about glyphosate’s approval‘ (pdf):

One of the core purposes of pesticide safety assessment is to set the ‘acceptable daily intake’ (ADI) for people’s everyday exposure to the chemical, for example through residues in food. In its 1999 evaluation of glyphosate, the German authorities proposed a high ADI for glyphosate of 0.3 mg per kilogram of body weight. They calculated this figure by reviewing the industry feeding trials using glyphosate and choosing the one they felt to be most sensitive to the effects of the chemical. In this case, the German authorities considered the most sensitive test to be a rat feeding trial. From this they calculated the ‘no observed adverse effect level’ (NOAEL). The ADI was then set at 100 times lower than this [10]. This ADI of 0.3 mg/kg was agreed by the European Commission, and is now law. But even four of the companies applying for approval of glyphosate differed in their interpretations of the industry feeding trials – based on the same studies; they suggested the ADI should be lower, ranging from 0.05mg/kg to 0.15 mg/kg [11].

In 2012, the ADI for glyphosate was re-examined by a group of scientists (including four professors) from universities in the UK and Brazil [12]. When they looked at the industry-funded feeding trials assessed by the German authorities, they noted some studies showed adverse effects at lower doses than in the rat feeding trial, but these findings had been ruled out for various reasons. They claim this led to “significant bias” in the data used. They commented that, if all the industry-funded studies had been included, a “more objectively accurate” ADI would be 0.1 mg/kg bodyweight per day. The group then examined the findings of independent trials of glyphosate published in scientific journals since 2002. Based on these, they concluded the ADI should correctly be 0.025mg/kg bodyweight per day, or “12 times lower than the ADI… currently in force in the EU”.

The ADI for glyphosate is not monitored.

I don’t know how the concentration of glyphosate in urine would relate to the concentration coming in the other end. What seems obvious is that the approach of finding an ‘acceptable’ level of any poisonous substance favours the industry manufacturing that substance at the expense of those humans and nonhumans who get lumbered with the job of storing it in their bodies. ADI? Try UDI!

War on badgers; war on wildness

October 15, 2012

Badger and cow
(source)

For the record: I oppose DEFRA’s proposed badger cull, which I recently read ‘could wipe out 100,000 badgers, a third of the national population’. I’ve signed the petition calling for it to be stopped, and apparently this now has enough signatures (over 100,000) to force a parliamentary debate on the subject. However, I don’t accept the unspoken premise underlying even much of the criticism that has been voiced: namely that if it can be proved that the continued, relatively undisturbed existence of wild badger populations poses any kind of threat to the vast population of domesticated cattle in this country then a cull is justified. This agrarian fundamentalist* logic is the main driver behind the current Holocene Extinction in which between 150-200 species are now being driven extinct every day through the actions of farming cultures destroying diverse wild communities in order to impose a chosen few domesticated plant and animal species upon the land – with the purpose of channeling as much of the planet’s biological wealth into the growth of the human population as possible and/or enslaving it to the economic machinations of the vampiric global mega-civilisation. Farmers and capitalists see economic value in cows. They see none in badgers, just like they saw none in wolves, bears, wild boar or aurochs (each driven extinct in Britain over recent centuries and millennia as a consequence of active policies of extermination and secondary effects of other activities such as destruction of habitat, most often related to agriculture) – therefore, on the slightest pretext and with the flimsiest of justifications, they have to go. Witness the insanity with which this topic is debated on national TV, hosted by a household-name naturalist:

Can you hear the sublimated hatred of all things wild – all things living according to an independent will; all things damaging to our religion of total control; all things reminding us of that which we fought (and continue to fight) so hard to put down in ourselves – the coldhearted militaristic language (‘take them out’), the tight grip of irrational fear (those ‘reservoirs’ of disease), the refusal to countenance reality and plough on regardless (‘No, I’m afraid culling will have to take place.’)? Do you see these things as clearly as I do? Do you find them as disturbing?

A while ago I read this article on the badgerland website, talking about the supposed threat posed by badgers to domesticated cattle. This passage in particular made sense to me, supporting Brian May’s contention in the above footage:

Some respectable scientists [citation needed], believe that cattle must meet several conditions before they can catch TB. The argument goes that rather than getting TB immediately they are first exposed to the TB bacteria, the cattle must have most of the following conditions: climate history, certain vitamin deficiencies, compromised immune system, intensive living conditions, high-stress lifestyle, lack of natural immunity to infection and disease, and multiple-exposure to the TB bacteria in a short space of time. In other words, cattle which are raised in natural field-based conditions, with minimum use of anti-biotics and other drugs, low-stress organics lifestyle are much less likely to succumb to TB infection. In organic terms, the higher incidence TB in cattle in the south-west of England is more likely to be due to more intensive cattle-rearing and animal husbandry, than the presence or otherwise of TB-infected badgers.

Another aspect is that TB can be passed from one individual to another by contact with infected breaths, coughs or sneezes, or infected urine or faeces. A very good place for badgers to catch earthworms and dung beetles, is in cow-pats. Perhaps, the argument goes, it is the cows who have TB, who pass it to badgers when the badgers snuffle through cow-pats looking for worms and beetles.

I bet this is the way it works in most, if not all, instances where wild creatures get the blame for the problems plaguing domesticates. I think that, despite what we hear all the time about ‘weeds’, ‘vermin’ and other undesirable interlopers in the grand schemes of human cultivation†, diseases, parasites and other pathological conditions are actually far less prevalent among robust & resilient wild individuals than among the sheltered, dependent, inbred and highly concentrated populations of domesticated plants and animals. As appears to be the case with endemic Bovine TB, the trouble only comes when the conditions have been created for it through the aforementioned hoarding of biological wealth. The disease manifests as ever more forceful attempts at wealth redistribution.

I’ve only seen badgers on a couple of occasions, but that was enough to utterly endear me to their character. I think going after them in this crass, viciously stupid manner (or allowing others to do so when we might have prevented them) can only serve to alienate ourselves further from the wild world at a time when we desperately need to start learning the lessons it has to offer. If we wish to someday beg a home in the spontaneous ecology of this country – ie: woodland – then we will need to apprentice ourselves to those who know how, having done so for many thousands, if not millions of years through an unbroken ancestral lineage. How likely are we to find willing teachers among those whose last contact with somebody who looked like us was through the sight of a gun?

Oh, I forgot to say: I support those engaging in direct action against any attempted badger culls.

———————-

* – hat-tip: Urban Scout

† – you could even apply this to the cultivation of human cultures: as we touched on before, think of all the diseases attributed to ‘inferior’, ‘mongrel’ groups of people such as Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and any strange immigrant culture. How often has this prejudice been used as a justification for campaigns of persecution, even genocide?

Herbicide: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

June 16, 2012

I’ve finally started reading a book by Timothy Lee Scott, Invasive Plant Medicine: The Ecological and Healing Abilities of Invasives (click on the image to go to the website) and it has provided further support and confirmation for a lot of the things I’ve been writing here as well as further provocative fuel for thought while I go about my business with conservationists and gardeners. I’ve just finished the chapters titled ‘Invasive Herbicidal Impacts’ and ‘The Economics of Weeds’. A passage in the latter confirms my earlier contention that ‘Biocidal poisons used to further the Green Revolution in the mid 20th century came directly from the re-tooled factories of World War Two’:

Nazi Germany pioneered chemical engineering for combating plants, pests, and people by developing highly poisonous organophosphate compounds used in agricultural pesticides and as chemical warfare nerve gases. In America after the two World Wars were over, there was a movement to find use for the millions of pounds of wasted ammunition and explosives that remained. Factories that once manufactured war machinery were waiting to be filled, soldiers needed jobs, and there were plenty of raw materials to use. The first widely used herbicides and pesticides were nothing but leftover weapons of war. Nitrogen- and phosphorous-based compounds accumulated in massive, stockpiled amounts during wartime, which then led to the practice of discarding them on agricultural fields as a synthetic fertilizer throughout America and, eventually, the world.

DuPont was the largest manufacturer of gunpowder during WWI and now is the parent company of the world’s largest seed company, Pioneer HiBred, and Monsanto saw a one-hundred-fold increase in profits by supplying chemicals to produce highly reactive explosives such as TNT. Dow Chemical and Monsanto have been the leading manufacturers of herbicides for decades, reaping huge profits from Agent Orange’s campaign against the Vietnamese jungles and with the Roundup family of herbicides for every dangerous [sic] plant imaginable. (pp.76-7, citing this article by Brian Tokar)

…while the story of ‘Agent Orange and the Rainbow Herbicides’ in the former is pretty horrific:

File:'Ranch Hand' run.jpg
(source: Wikipedia)

The use of herbicides for warfare was first brought to our attention in the Vietnam War, when rainbow herbicides were sprayed across territories to reveal hideouts, destroy agriculture, and poison the enemy. The barrels containing these agents that Dow Chemical Company and Monsanto, among others, manufactured had a coloured stripe painted on them to identify the contents:

Agent Orange, Agent Green, Agent Pink, Agent White, and Agent Purple

The most common was Agent Orange, an equal blend of two phenoxy herbicides (2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T). Between 1961 and 1971, about forty-six thousand tonnes of it was sprayed at intensified rates over 3.5 million acres of southern Vietnamese forests and cropland. Not only were ecosystems completely ravaged by this mass poisoning effort, but also millions of civilians and allied troops were caught in the crossfire. The toxin dioxin used in all of these poisons has been reported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to cause a wide variety of illnesses that affect various bodily systems and is still present in our [sic] environment at high concentrations. Some known ailments that are compensated under VA benefits include type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, respitory cancers, multiple myeloma, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, soft-tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyries cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spina bifida in the children of veterans. Since 1984, Dow Chemical Company has lost various class-action lawsuits regarding these poisonings of American, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and South Korean veterans in Vietnam. All have won health care compensation for the unforseen hazards of their service. (p.69, citing this allmilitary forum post)

Of course the generations of Vietnamese victims have had no such luck, with lawsuits against Dow Chemical and Monsanto and subsequent appeals getting thrown out various US courts between 2004 and 2009. To get a deeper sense of this atrocity, read the Wikipedia article and associated links or, if you’ve got a strong stomach, type ‘agent orange effects’ into an image search engine.

I subscribe to the notion articulated by Hireesh Chandra of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at Gandhi Medical College, who said, referring to the Bhopal disaster, that individuals or institutions “shouldn’t be permitted to make poison for which there is no antidote” (quoted in Jensen, Culture of Make Believe, p.285)

News photo

It seems Agent Orange is still poisoning people in Japan, where:

The U.S. Marine Corps buried a massive stockpile of Agent Orange at the Futenma air station in Okinawa, possibly poisoning the base’s former head of maintenance and potentially contaminating nearby residents and the ground beneath the base, The Japan Times recently learned from interviews with U.S. veterans.

The barrels were apparently abandoned in Okinawa at the end of the Vietnam War — when the U.S. government banned the dioxin-laden defoliant for health reasons — and were buried at the installation in the city of Ginowan after the Pentagon ignored requests to safely dispose of them, according to the veterans who served at the installation in the 1970s and 1980s.

[...]

In 1972, the U.S. removed its stockpiles of Agent Orange from South Vietnam to Johnston Island in the North Pacific where, after a five-year debate over how to dispose of them safely, they were eventually incinerated at sea in 1977.

Scientists researching the dangers of Agent Orange in South Vietnam have discovered that because its highly poisonous dioxin is not dissolved by rainwater, it can remain in the soil, poisoning people for decades. In southern Vietnam today, there are more than 20 dioxin hot spots at sites used by the U.S. military to store Agent Orange.

Where is the accountability for these motherfuckers? How can they get away with this? What incentive do they have to not commit the same crimes in the future?

I don’t expect an answer to these questions anytime soon.

In the meantime I have my work cut out trying to persuade my bosses of the insanity of torching gardens, driveways and even bodies of water with Glyphosate (Monsanto’s patented chemical in Roundup) to kill the plants they or their clients, in their definitely less-than-infinite wisdom, have decided don’t belong.

3 vids

March 15, 2012

Excellent animated intro to Peak Oil by Dermot O’Connor, sometime blogger at idleworm, in case you’ve been living under a rock (or more likely relying on the corporate media to inform you) for the last ten years or have friends and family in a similarly deplorable state of ignorance (although consider Dmitry Orlov’s health warning: ‘when introducing this to people, please remind them that they will need a couple of years to come to terms with this, and should try to not panic in the meantime’) – ‘There’s No Tomorow‘:

Beautiful, inspirational vid exploring the work of Charles Eisenstein, directed by Ian MacKenzie – ‘Sacred Economics: Money, Gift & Community In An Age Of Transition‘:

Excellent, subversive talk by Craig Murray, former ambassador to Uzbekistan turned whistleblower, at the Berlin Freedom of Expression Forum. Ironically it appears this talk was censored – ‘removed by the user’ – while all the other videos from the conference stayed up. If you want to know what I think about recent politics he just about sums it up, speaking authoritatively from his own personal experience. The talk is titled ‘Realism or Hypocrisy? – Western Diplomacy and Freedom of Expression’:

You could also check out the latest output on Matt Carr’s excellent blog, ‘Infernal Machine‘ (sample quote: ‘the attitude of both governments to the ‘Arab Spring’ has not been driven by a concern for ‘the human rights and dignity of all people’, but by an opportunistic attempt to turn the upheavals of the last year or so to their strategic advantage’) or the ever-brilliant Media Lens, whose message board I still follow compulsively. I still can’t bear to get into this filthy stuff again, despite telling John-’bomb Iran‘-and-now-’take out Syria‘-McCain to ‘fuck off’ in rather heated tones while watching C4 news last night with my family. I’ll just say that I knew the R2P, humanitarian intervention stuff was bollocks and that it would only end up harming the people it ostensibly set out to help, having looked at the history of the CIA and NED involvement in other ‘noble causes’ from Tibet to Burma to Zimbabwe to South Africa. Check it out:

The CIA cooked up a fresh operation in Mustang, a remote corner of Nepal that juts into Tibet. Nearly two thousand Tibetans gathered here to continue their fight for freedom. A year later, the CIA made its first arms drop in Mustang. Organised on the lines of a modern army, the guerrillas were led by Bapa Yeshe, a former monk.

‘As soon as we received the aid, the Americans started scolding us like children. They said that we had to go into Tibet immediately. Sometimes I wished they hadn’t sent us the arms at all,’ says Yeshe. The Mustang guerrillas conducted cross-border raids into Tibet. The CIA made two more arms drops to the Mustang force, the last in May 1965. Then, in early 1969, the agency abruptly cut off all support. The CIA explained that one of the main conditions the Chinese had set for establishing diplomatic relations with the US was to stop all connections and all assistance to the Tibetans. Says Roger McCarthy, an ex-CIA man, ‘It still smarts that we pulled out in the manner we did.’

Thinley Paljor, a surviving resistance fighter, was among the thousands shattered by this volte-face. ‘We felt deceived, we felt our usefulness to the CIA is finished. They were only thinking short-term for their own personal gain, not for the long-term interests of the Tibetan people.’ In 1974, armtwisted by the Chinese, the Nepalese government sent troops to Mustang to demand the surrender of the guerrillas. Fearing a bloody confrontation, the Dalai Lama sent the resistance fighters a taped message, asking them to surrender. They did so, reluctantly. Some committed suicide soon afterwards.

Today, the survivors of the Mustang resistance force live in two refugee settlements in Nepal, where they eke out a living spinning wool and weaving carpets. ‘The film is for the younger Tibetans, who are unaware of the resistance, as well as for Americans, who don’t know how their own government used and betrayed the resistance,’ says [film maker] Tenzing. (link)

They only care™ when it pays them to care™, and we’re fools if we go along with it uncritically. Ask: why don’t you hear impassioned pleas for the defense of ‘freedom fighters’ in Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen, Afghanistan…etc?

Anyway, that’s already more than I intended to write. I’ll go drink some nice, soothing chamomile tea now.

Forests Revisited

April 22, 2011

I’ve been reading Marion Shoard’s excellent 1987 offering, This Land Is Our Land: The Struggle for Britain’s Countryside, and thought I would share a few passages that particularly struck me as part of a broader effort to find out where I stand on the issue of preserving and/or expanding woodland cover on the British Isles and, presuming the desirability of this outcome, how best to go about this. I’m not sure how much of the information she provides applies directly to the present situation (for example, I get the impression the Forestry Commission isn’t as keen on pine plantations now as she makes out they were back then) but the analysis still seems largely relevant and, for me, it provided a useful and interesting historical perspective on how these issues have developed over the decades.

After criticising 38 Degrees for their lack of ‘nuance’, it seems my plea of basically indiscriminate expansion of forest cover (as I put it to the local MP: ‘It seems insane to allow +any+ possibility of renewed impoverishment in this regard’ – ibid.) failed to take longstanding politics of land ownership into account. I was surprised and chastened to read Shoard’s description of afforestation as a disaster for both human and non-human communities, at least the way it has been carried out over the past century. It didn’t occur to me that my entirely reasonable desire to reverse the drastic deforestation of this land over the centuries and millennia might play further into the hands of those primarily responsible for the damage:

[I]f agriculture does at some stage in the future prove less profitable than it is now, landowners can be expected to switch their effort deftly into another sphere which will allow them to secure their age-old goals. One such sphere already suggests itself. This is forestry. Minister of Agriculture Michael Jopling prophesied in 1986, ‘If surplus agricultural production throughout the European Community is to be reduced – as it must – then I see forestry as offering perhaps the most promising alternative use for land which may no longer be required for agricultural production.’69 The NFU proposed in 1986 that one and a quarter million acres of farmland in England and Wales – 4.6 per cent of the total – should be turned over to forestry during a twenty-five year period through annual income supplements from the taxpayer of £50 million.70 At the same time, the organisations that lobby on behalf of forestry have been energetically considering the various forms which lowland forestry might take and calling for an array of new government grants to support it. For instance, farmers might sell some of their land to forestry companies. Or, they might retain ownership and shift production from crops to trees concentrated in plantations. Or, they could combine forestry with cash-cropping of cereals and livestock on the same establishment. If forestry does come to play a bigger role in the lowlands it will bring with it an array of implications for the rest of the community which upland Britain already knows all too well. (p.205)

[...]

Altogether, 90 square miles of the land of Great Britain, much of it bare moor and glen like Glen Ample, were afforested in the year ending 31 March 1986.71 Four per cent of this new planting consisted of broad-leafed trees; the remaining 96 per cent conifers. While the government agency for forestry, the Forestry Commission, carried out one fifth of the new planting, the private sector was responsible for the remaining eighty-one square miles of new planting. During the sixty years up to 1986, the planting of new forests in Britain proceeded at the average rate of about 41,000 acres a year; the result is new planting of around 2.7 million acres, the vast amount of it coniferous.72 And there is much, much more to come.

Imagine an area the size of Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire combined: 3 million acres in all. This is the area that will be covered in new plantations by the middle of the next century if the plans of the Government and the Forestry Commission are fulfilled. In 1980, the Government gave an essentially open-ended commitment to the expansion of forestry. The then Secretary of State for Scotland and Forestry Minister, George Younger MP, told the House of Commons that new planting (as opposed to the restocking of existing forests) should continue at broadly the rate of the past quarter century, but with the private sector playing a greater part than hitherto.73 On this basis an extra 3 million acres of Britain’s land will be under forest by the year 2031. As no absolute limit has been set on the ultimate target area for planting, and as applications for grants from the private sector for new planting have essentially been given on demand, the figure could rise higher still. If past trends are anything to go by, the vast forest that will blanket most of Britain’s uplands by the middle of the next century will not have room for many broad-leafed trees. Britain’s foresters prefer to plant conifers because they grow quicker and provide faster returns than the traditional broad-leafed species of Britain like oak, beech, birch, hornbeam, ash, maple and lime. The species most often planted over the past half-century have been Norway and Sitka spruce, larch, Scots, Corsican and Lodgepole pine. Eighty-five per cent of the Commission’s own forests are conifer; and in 1986, more than 95 per cent of the area of private planting in Great Britain consisted of conifers. An appealing prospect for our grandchildren? Certainly an appealing financial prospect for the men, women and companies engaged in a mad scramble to afforest what remains of Britain’s wild country outside the food factories. (pp.207-9)

It might also lead to more ecological destruction and loss of biodiversity:

Apart from sharing a common reliance on photosynthesis, modern forestry has little to do with the ancient practice of harvesting naturally growing trees as they reach maturity. Like modern agriculture, modern forestry takes little more account of the natural environment than does an engineering factory on an industrial estate.

In the past, woodland was not cleared and replanted wholesale every few decades. Nature’s bounty was literally plucked from the forest. Foresters took advantage of the ability of trees to live for ever. Normally, they coppiced or pollarded trees, only occasionally felling them whole. This meant that the ground vegetation of the woods was never radically disturbed. The coppicing and pollarding actually increased the diversity of the wild plants and minibeasts of the woodland floor by letting in more light. What is more, since traditional woodland management relied on nature, it revolved around naturally-occurring tree species. In one area maple would dominate, in another lime, in others elm, hazel, oak, beech or ash, or, in the highest mountains of Scotland and Wales, Scots pine.

Modern forestry, by contrast, imposes its own environment. First, the trees of any existing deciduous wood are felled and the stumps bulldozed out or poisoned to prevent regeneration. The ground is then usually ploughed to a depth of eighteen to twenty-nine inches and the new crop, which is almost always a conifer species, planted. Herbicides suppress any plants that might compete with the saplings while fertilizers force the speed of tree growth to the maximum possible rate. The impact of all this on the ecosystem not only of what was once an upland hillside but also of what was once a deciduous wood is almost as devastating as if the land had been cleared to make way for a barley field or a motorway. (p.216)

To my credit, I did make the point in my original analysis that ‘we still have to ask what kind of woodland’ gets introduced through the process of afforestation. Be careful what you ask for… Shoard continues on the subject of ancient woodland:

Many of the woods that have been the subject of post-war coniferization have been not simply old-established deciduous woods but woods whose origins go back thousands of years to the time before Man himself appeared in Britain. They are the remnants of the post-Ice-Age forest cover – the ancient woodlands. One result of the gradual evolution of these woods over thousands of years is that the mixture of tree species varies even from one part of the wood to another. An expert on ancient woodlands Dr Oliver Rackham of Cambridge University explained the unique value of ancient woodlands to a Commons Committee in 1980:

Ancient woods are of value not only for their tree assemblages but also for their communities of herbaceous plants … In Eastern England more than fifty such species have been listed, including Primula elatior (the oxlip), Anemone nemorosa (the wood anemone), Euphorbia amygdaloides (wood spurge) and Carex pallescens (pale sedge), besides trees and shrubs such as Tilia cordata (small-leaved lime) and Crataegus laevigata (two-styled hawthorn). These are a characteristic and irreplaceable part of ancient woodland. Woods are part of our cultural history as well as of our native vegetation. A medieval wood, with its boundary bank and other earthworks, ancient coppice stools, and soil profiles and landforms undisturbed by cultivation, is a record of our environment and civilization as complex and as irreplaceable as a medieval church.79

Leicestershire and Pembrokeshire, Lincolnshire and Gwynedd, Somerset, Clywd and Cornwall – all these counties share the tragic distinction of having lost around half their ancient woodland over the last fifty years according to Nature Conservancy Council figures.80 Cropland or conifer plantation has been the most common fate of the land involved. While Surrey, north Cumbria, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire have lost slightly less of their ancient woodland – around 40 per cent each – in several counties, notably Gwent, Shropshire and Northamptonshire, landowners have seen fit to clear away well over 60 per cent of the county’s ancient woodland during the last fifty years.

Though conifers may yield financial dividends, they spell wholesale losses for wildlife. Fir is the food plant for only sixteen different insect species – compared to the 284 that live on the bountiful oak. The range of creatures that prey on insects – and of the creatures that prey on them – is similarly denuded. It is not only the conifers themselves which are less attractive to wildlife. They shelter far fewer secondary plants, like hazel, holly, rowan, elder, willow, spindle, dogwood or guelder rose. There are usually fewer climbers such as ivy, clematis and honeysuckle, and the trunks and branches are home to few mosses and lichens. (pp.216-8)

So in principle I still see the value in protecting & preserving ancient woodlands into perpetuity, even though I’m not sure I’ve ever been in one of these designated woodlands, so have no direct experience of their quality when compared to, say, the wooded areas of a nearby common which was largely treeless grazing/quarry/barren scrub land until midway through the last century. On that note, our friend Mark Fisher wrote the most ‘nuanced’ piece I’ve yet seen on this subject back in February: ‘England’s Public Forest Estate – public ownership now and for future generations‘. Apparently the government line (and mine – oops!) that the Forestry Commission only ‘own’ 18% of UK woodland doesn’t tell the whole story:

While it is reasonably common knowledge that the forest cover in continental Europe is much higher than the 8.7% of England, I think many will be surprised at the high extent of public ownership in Europe compared to the 30.8% in public ownership in England (6). There may even be surprise at that percentage in England, because the figure most bandied about of late is just the 18% that is owned by the Forestry Commission (FC). As I know to my benefit, because they give me great pleasure where I live, 6% of England’s woodlands are owned by local authorities and the balance of the difference is owned by other public bodies.

In contrast to Shoard’s complaints about ‘dark and forbidding timber factor[ies]‘ which ‘strike a chill into lowland landscapes’ and, in ‘impenetrable blocks [...] continue to march over Britain’s hills and moors, obliterating their wild, open character’ Fisher emphasises the importance that even ‘low-grade’ plantations can have to local people with no other options for woodland access:

Working with Forest Neighbours to defend Gibb Torr from deforestation by the local Wildlife Trust, I came to understand why people liked this conifer plantation woodland awash in a massive sea of moorland in Staffordshire (The defence of woodland – Forest Neighbours and Gib Torr (10). They could see unambiguously the wildlife value it has, especially birdlife, and which the Wildlife Trust ignores for its own choice of creating even more moorland! I saw the wildlife tracks myself, and stumbled over an astonishing drift of orchids deep in its centre. What would happen to these? It is one of those situations where a conifer plantation is the only woodland that local people have, and thus also the only woodland available for woodland wildlife in the area.

He notes the failure of charities and established environmental groups, including the Woodland Trust, to meaningfully oppose the FC sell-off, suggesting they may be out of touch with the causes of public concern:

Save Our Woods, one of the many national campaign groups that have blossomed, pointed to the lack of integration across the broad spectrum of land based interests by those that were meant to be representative of the public voice (27):
“…the large NGOs were very slow to publish their stance or even realise their stance, thus showing a lack of knowledge and certainly a loss of touch with the public and even their members which was quickly criticised by several within and on the periphery of landscape and natural heritage issues”

I would just highlight a few as they relate to Hurn’s forests, and Chopwell Wood.

Mark Avery, the RSPB’s Conservation Director, wrote in the Guardian (28):
“I can’t honestly get really worked up about who owns the small wood down the road from me whose main function is to grow trees for the timber market”

Many of those “ugly industrial conifer forests” that Avery would sell off (29) are what local people are attached to, because that is what is in many cases the local woodland with open access that they have come to enjoy, and it is often the only woodland in the landscape for woodland species. They don’t want to be patronised by Avery or the RSPB in what they should value about their woodland, especially when the prejudice against them is mostly about their undoubted wildlife not being what is valued by organisations like RSPB or Avery. Moreover, the RSPB/Avery would exert their usual pressure for deforestation to open heathland habitat if there was the slightest chance of just one more Dartford warbler (30). This is not what the people of Hurn want to hear.

It seems clear to me that a local relationship of human communities to the ecology – whether forest, heath, moor or any other landscape type – should be the primary locus of decision-making and the starting point for any discussion of the loaded and potentially dangerous question of how to ‘improve’ the environment.


(Bluebells in Glovers Wood, Charlwood, ‘owned’ by the Woodland Trust – their page of info)

Stretched beyond the Empathic Limit

April 2, 2011

They want me to care, but I don’t, I can’t, I won’t, I don’t see why I should.

Gadaffi, Libya, rebel uprisings, arms, bombs, artillery, fighter jets, cruise missiles, deaths in the Middle East. Who are these people to me? I know why they care (the dictator wants to hold onto power, the people want to oust him and be able to afford food, and western leaders want to maintain access to oil and arms markets by ushering in and tutoring the new regime); or at least why they pretend to care. I just don’t. Sue me.

Japan, tsunamis, Fukushima, radiation, nuclear power prospects, ‘environmentalists’ doing the industry’s PR for them, energy politics. Where’s the relevance to my life? Where can I fruitfully, meaningfully intervene? This is not ‘news’ – these are pixels on a screen! We only know about these places because our pirate ancestors were looking for new resources to plunder, and the same is true today: interest in a story correlates strongly to the depth of economic investment in related areas.

Clearly I’m in need of a Noble Cause – the more world-beating (and impossible) the better! Maybe I should carry on with saving the forests – they payed attention to my voice when I raised it before after all. Then why did I feel so utterly wearied when I heard my own words repeated back to me in news reports and government statements? Why did my ‘victory’ taste so bitter? Or maybe I should hop on the train of superficial activist energy and rescue the NHS from the latest round of bureaucratic cannibalism. But wait a minute – why all this energy spent on preserving government bodies? I haven’t been to a hospital in years, and I’d be perfectly happy in a future without them (if the medical know-how they enclosed were to return to uncomplicated everyday use among the populace). Ditto the Forestry Commission. Not to go all ‘Big Society’ on you, but I’d rather see decision-making devolved to the lowest levels with local people in charge of the local resources which they use.

Climate Change, Peak Oil, Austerity, Revolution, Overpopulation, Species Loss, – what do all these big words mean to me? My senses have been killed! I live in a self-controlled, self-mediated bubble named ‘security’. Maybe I remember that Springs used to be rainier (but then, haven’t Winters gotten colder?) Maybe I notice that petrol and food are getting more expensive (but it’s a free market, right?). Maybe I see the kids getting angrier, fewer bees about, more people desperately ‘seeking employment’, the arts getting more pointless and irrelevant, and – slowly as ever – the dim recognition of life-possibilities gradually choking down to the most meagre levels. Beyond that, I’m blind and stupid. You have to level with me; you will have to work with what I’ve got.

All the talk is about murder, starvation, injustice, energy, pollution, money, drugs, crime, immigration. Meanwhile, I know dozens of people who will work themselves to death, but I never say anything to them. An elderly neighbour talks to me about her excruciating leg pain, all the pills she takes and the times she has fallen because it got too much. In her house, on her own. And I itch to escape from her confiding and forget all about what she has told me.

I have exceeded my capacity to care.

Writing to an MP about Woodland

January 31, 2011

Text of my email to the (not ‘my’) Conservative MP representing the (not ‘our’) local constituency, subject: ‘Forestry Commission vote this Wednesday’:

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx

I’m writing to voice my opposition to DEFRA’s announcement that they plan to sell off up to 100% of the land currently owned by the Forestry Commission to private bodies. The important issues for me here are:

1) – Ecology. Britain has a mere 12% total coverage of woodland, compared to an EU average of 37% (45% if you include Russia) (1). Everybody seems to agree on the importance of woodland for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and health benefits – to humans as well as plants and animals. It seems insane to allow +any+ possibility of renewed impoverishment in this regard at a time when we face so many related global crises.

2) – Access. I realise the FC only owns 18% of the UK’s woodland, but this accounts for between 66% (England) and 91% (Wales) of accessible woodland (2). It seems blindingly obvious to me that an increase in private ownership will result in a proportional decrease in public access and yet more fences and signs saying ‘Private – trespassers will be prosecuted’.

Interestingly these plans might not even make sense economically. For instance Private Eye reported that:

“… the cost of regulating and dishing out funds to private forestry companies is likely to outweigh the money raised from land sales. Lorraine Adams, branch president for the scientists’ union, Prospect, which represents more than 200 researchers, cartographers, rangers and skilled Forestry Commission (FC) workers, has uncovered evidence of this since the FC already sells off land occasionally. When it recently flogged an area of woodland for £60,000, for example, the new landowner immediately applied for funds under the English Woodland Grant Scheme to grow and cut timber and was given assistance totalling £55,000.

The private landowner will also be able to come back and ask for more grants in future – as well as bidding for other environmental stewardship and rural development subsidies available to forest owners – while the government can only sell the land once.” (3)

So far as I know there is no electoral mandate for this plan. One national survey finds that 84% of the public oppose the sell-off and a petition run by the same group has collected over 330,000 signatures. (4) This does not give democracy a good reputation!

I understand these issues are being discussed in parliament this coming Wednesday. Please could you confirm your attendance and your intention to vote against these measures of national and international importance?

Yours sincerely,
Ian xxxxxxx

(1) ‘Forestry Facts & Figures 2010′ – http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfs210.pdf/$FILE/fcfs210.pdf

(2) The Woodland Trust’s ‘Space For People’ report – http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/spaceforpeople.pdf

(3) ‘Forest Chumps’ – http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&issue=1280

(4) See: http://38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests

38 Degrees have an easy-to-use template over here. If you use their pre-set message you can be done in five minutes. The Public Bodies Bill is being debated this Wednesday, so get your skates on! If you need something else to light the fire in your belly, read the SchNEWS report, ‘Fight Them on the Beeches‘ from a few weeks back. Sample paragraph, with a little more ‘nuance’ than the 38 Degrees crew’s analysis:

The Forestry Commission ain’t perfect but there does at least seem to be some commitment to the idea of public ownership and access. Right-to-roam legislation only applies to ‘freehold’ rather ‘leasehold’ woodlands, meaning that new owners, depending on the terms of the sale, will be able to restrict access. And of course any time that a more profitable alternative reared its head they’d have total freedom to change their minds and shut off access.

And a typically priceless image:

Conservatives - It's time for chainsaws...

I’ll post any subsequent exchange in the comments. So far the MP responses posted over here indicate a split between party lines, with Tory MPs mostly doing a cut-and-paste job of the same ‘Big Society’ message, with concessions and reassurances that I (perhaps unsurprisingly) found deeply unsatisfactory; Labour MPs giving short, cheap messages of support (at least they were personalised, I suppose); and Lib-Dem MPs strangely shy of voicing any opinion one way or another (I wonder why?)

Mark Well – The State, The Forests, & The State Of The Forests

December 4, 2010

So, the Con-Dems have announced that they are going to sell the forests they ‘own’* (through the Forestry Commission) to private, I assume mostly profit-making, companies. To get you up to speed:

Info that stood out to me from the above:

1) – 72% of UK woodland is already in private ownership – the FC only ‘own’ 18%.

2) – Total UK woodland cover has gotten more extensive over the last century – from 4% in 1919 to 12% currently. This compares to 33% (EcoEarth ibid.) – 44% (Woodland Trust) for the European average†. However, we still have to ask what kind of woodland…

[...] only a small proportion of [the UK landscape's 12% woodland cover], around 40 per cent, is native woodland.

Ancient woodland, land which has been continuously wooded since at least 1600AD and is our closest link with the original wildwood, now covers only 2 per cent* of the UK’s land area.

(*This varies from 4.2 per cent in Scotland to 3.2 per cent in Wales, 2.45 per cent in England and less than 0.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.)

Sadly, nearly 50 per cent of the ancient woodland that survived until the 1930s has since been lost or damaged by agriculture, development or planting by non-native conifers for commercial forestry. (Woodland Trust, ‘Why has woodland in the UK declined?’ – ibid.)

Further, the 2% of ancient woodland land area splits into the categories of ‘Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland’ (ASNW) which ‘is composed of native tree species that have not obviously been planted’ and ‘Planted Ancient Woodland Sites’ (PAWS) – ‘ancient woods in which the former tree cover has been replaced, often with non-native trees’ (Wikipedia). So it isn’t clear how much – if any – woodland has survived the onslaught of the agricultural/industrial culture in this country over the last 6,000 years; how much of it in any way resembles its previous form.

3) – 75% of wood used (‘consumed’) in the UK is imported from abroad.

On 1) I suppose the issue is that, in theory, the public can exercise rights of access on government-owned land, whereas doing so on private land would involve jumping a few fences and operating outside the law (policemen backing up property ‘rights’ with force). I’m waiting to hear back from the FC about what percentage of their land is actually open to the public. This snippet suggests not all of it, but that there might at least be the possibility of some legal redress:

The commission, says Lees ['recreation and public affairs manager' for the FC in SW England], now aims to make as much of its woodland accessible to the public as possible. In fact, it is obliged to; the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 ensures the public can walk freely on mapped areas. (link)

(Of course, if you consider the law unjust or that those dictating its terms have no legitimacy, then you can declare it irrelevant and go about your business as you please. However, I would advise you to do so either invisibly or in numbers substantial enough to ward off attacks from dedicated enforcers…‡)

2) feels like waters receding before a tidal wave, explained by 3) – as I guessed before timber companies currently find it more economical to operate abroad for the usual reasons of lax regulations, greater abundance of exploitable ‘resources’, and the cheap energy (oil) which allows them to ship their products (the carcasses of trees) to any receptive market, no matter how far away. Another Guardian article informs us that ‘[b]oth the Thatcher and Major governments tried to privatise the Forestry Commission in the 1980s and 1990s but failed following intense pressure from conservation groups and lack of interest by industry’ – funny how the successes of environmentalists always seem to coincide with industry disinterest in this way… How long are things going to stay that way though? The article mentions that:

[...]land has become more valuable, not just for timber but for providing “environmental services” such as flood control, climate change measures and amenity.

In England the commission is subsidised by £30m a year, but generates an additional £63m a year in income. A government economic study released earlier this year calculated that it provides £2,100 in value per hectare per year if benefits such as erosion protection, pollution absorption, carbon sequestration, health provision are included. (ibid.)

… and we have similar barf-inducement from the RSPB spokesman talking about ‘our natural capital’ – all of which views the environment as a subsidiary of the capitalist economy (it’s the other way round), and assumes that the best way to preserve something is to put a price tag on it. For the moment the industrialists aren’t acting too impressed:

Prices today reflect a very different market, says Clegg ['senior partner at John Clegg that handles the sale of about two-thirds of the woods sold in the UK each year']: “High-quality broadleaf woodland is the most valuable. A small, southern England wood costs about £10,000 an acre. Whereas, in Northumberland, a large commercial forest larger than 100 acres might expect to fetch £1,750-£3,000 an acre. Consider that farmland is currently worth £4,000-£6,000 an acre and many might see planting trees as a way to devalue your land, even with the subsidies available. It’s very hard work to make a forest commercially viable. And, perversely, it’s a real struggle to get planning permission to plant a new forest.

“Back in the 1980s when the tax relief was available, we had about 23,000 acres being planted a year. So the idea – as has been suggested this week – that someone will want to buy, say, the New Forest for commercial reasons just isn’t viable. It’s just not a commercial proposition. And even the major overseas buyers are not going to be interested, because our forests are just too small for them to consider. The biggest forests that typically come on the market today are worth no more than £500,000. Even talk of their future value as ‘carbon sinks’ [forests commercially maintained due to their tradable worth as absorbers of carbon dioxide] is hugely overrated. There is lots of talk at the moment about the ‘carbon rights’ of forests, but it is still a really undefined market in this country. I can’t think of a sale yet where we’ve put a value on the carbon rights.” (ibid.)

… but give it a few years and they might be talking differently, especially if, by then, the land is already out of notional public ownership, and higher import prices start to make ‘indigenous resources’ look more attractive…

Meanwhile, I read in last week’s SchNEWS an example of what happens to Our Precious Ancient Woodland even before the proposed sell-off:

In 2009, West Sussex County Council granted permission to Northern Petroleum to test drill for oil in the ancient woodland at Markwells Wood, near Chichester (see SchNEWS 631).

The firm reckons it has uncovered a stash of between 35 and 61 million barrels of joy beneath the wood and has now decided to start bringing in heavy equipment and begin drilling.

The firm’s boss announced: “The commercial case for drilling Markwells Wood is compelling when the price level of oil is above $80 per barrel.” i.e. At $80 a pop that’s some haul with a street value in the billions. Yee-haw!

My rule: Ignore what they say; look at what they do and the priorities become clear. Some more media reports:

And more take-away info:

1) Northern Petroleum plan to fell 1 hectare (approx. 2.5 acres) of PAWS woodland in an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ and ‘England’s newest National Park’ – the South Downs.

2) Onshore drilling in the UK is becoming more ‘commercially viable’ (ie: attractively profitable) since North Sea oil passed its peak in 2009 and imports are getting more expensive. Only 1.5% of the 1.6 million barrels of oil extracted every day from UK territory comes from onshore wells, but 97 new licences for oil/gas exploration were granted in 2008, compared to just 8 five years previously.

3) The council doesn’t even own the land, and, unless there are undisclosed kickbacks (Daily Mail commenter ‘Pete, UK’ has a ‘good friend who works for a council planning department’ who says that ‘back handers are rife in the planning process’ – good enough for me ;) ), the profits get split 50:50 between the oil company and the central government treasury, leaving locals with the questionable benefits of  temporary, transient ‘jobs in the haulage and service maintenance sector’ (the best NP could come up with).

I followed the link in the second BBC article to the Chichester District Council Planning Commitee Report of May ’08 (PDF) which declares a ‘clear and overriding need for oil exploration’, backing this up with referrals to the ‘National Minerals Policy’ and their own ‘Development Plan Policies’ (1 – ‘Promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond’, 2 – ‘Maximise the potential of the UK’s conventional oil and gas reserves in an environmentally acceptable manner’ and 3 – ‘Maintain the reliability of energy supplies’) before quoting this piss-weak justification repeatedly in the subsequent text, as if they’ve made an adequate case.

See if you can make sense of this paragraph:

The loss of ancient woodland should not be permitted unless the need for, and benefits of the development in that location outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat also taking into account the habitat/amenity value of that woodland. The need for the development is clear. [Because we say so.] The benefits of the development in this location are two fold; achieving acceptable noise levels at sensitive receptors and excellent natural screening. Although there is a clear desire to retain ancient woodland it is considered that, given the visual/amenity benefits of siting the development therein, measures proposed to retain ancient features where possible, restoration to structured woodland, substantial compensatory woodland/hedgerow planting, and the relatively limited quality of the woodland, its loss is acceptable. (p.3)

Have they really decided to cut down an ancient woodland because it is surrounded by trees?? Also, ‘its loss is acceptable’ – disturbing, huh? Acceptable to you, maybe…

Point 8.3 really scrapes the barrel:

Exploration wells are an invaluable source of data on the sub-surface geological structure of Britain and greatly extend our knowledge of the nation’s resources.

A knowledge which will be used … to extract more resources!

Neither Natural England or the Environment Agency raised any objections to these plans, only ‘conditions’ about groundwater pollution (4.8), ‘mitigation measures’ for ‘badger protection, reptile relocation and bat boxes’ (11.6) and soil and subsoil being ‘permanently retained on site and used in restoration’ (Appendix 1.18).  Objections to the loss of ancient woodland were raised by the Woodland Trust (4.20), the South Downs Joint Committee (4.22) and the West Sussex County Council ‘Landscape’ (who also raised concerns about ‘setting a precedent’ – 4.12) and ‘Ecology’ (4.14) consultees, but it’s not clear if they plan to do anything about it after having their views noted and ignored. Like Jeff Buckley sang: ‘We know you’re useless like cops at the scene of the crime’. Practically the first thing you learn about ancient woodland is that it takes centuries to mature, and you can’t kill the trees, scoop out the soil and expect it to grow back the way it was before.

I find it all very depressing. The word ‘need’ or ‘needs’ comes up 46 times in the 32-page document, most of which instances refer at base to the ‘need’ of the agrarian/industrial/capitalist/civilised economy to bleed the Earth dry of all materials useful for its project of neverending expansion. You could more honestly substitute the word with ‘want(s)’, ‘desire(s)’ or ‘demand(s)’. I’m reminded of the husband’s traditional ‘need’ (in patriarchal societies) for sexual gratification, with or without his wife’s consent. Lianne at ‘We Left Marks’ points out that the estimated 35 million barrels of oil under Markwells Wood ‘would only last the country just over three weeks at our current rate of consumption’, and puts the news in the context of Peak Oil (crucial background which mainstream media still don’t provide), asking the multi-billion-dollar question:

Is it worth destroying a hectare of ancient woodland to get at? Well Northern Petroleum says it is. But I would question the long-term usefulness of energy companies (though admittedly their long-term logic tends to defer to short-term profitability) and government continuing to focus upon energy-intensive and harder-to-acquire sources, like tar sands or Iraq’s oil fields, when we could be getting ahead of the game.

‘Northern Petroleum says it is’ – quite. Do we** agree with them? Do we agree with the law which ‘allows exploration for valuable minerals such as oil even in national parks if the potential benefits outweigh the destruction caused’ (Daily Mail, ibid.) – a totally subjective judgement? I for one don’t buy the argument that ‘they’re just giving us what we want’; I think the Resource Extractors in effect force us into dependency on their products through the large scale of their operations, which rapidly inundate any alternatives. Refusal to buy the product (eg: trains, roads/cars, computers, mobile phones, and the raw materials from which these are built) becomes a tactic relegated to ‘eccentrics’ and ‘misanthropes’ on the margins of society, once the product is common enough to form a social ‘expectation’. And if it’s there, you may as well use it, right? Or, as George Monbiot put it: ‘if fossil fuels are extracted, they will be used’ – supply generates demand. His solution? ‘Leave [them] in the ground’.

The SchNEWS crew hope for ‘a Sussex rabble yet to make the whole project go a little less smoothly’ (ibid.), and that’s something I’d like to see too. However, to really ignite opposition I think we need better reasons than the ones given by conservationists. It comes back to the fundamental problem: we don’t depend on the forests for our survival. Therefore you can talk all you want about recreation, environmental ‘services’, mental health benefits, etc. – ultimately we’re farming people: our (not-so-)livelihoods come from cutting the trees down and planting rows of grain where they once stood. The ‘natural capitalists’ have a point in a way – our culture perceives value in terms of £££s, so if we see no value in the woods; if we prize the minerals underneath them more than the living communities on the surface, then they are doomed. It’s an old, sad story which Guy Hand tells in ‘The Forest of Forgetting‘ (PDF):

Like most indigenous cultures, theirs [the 'Gaelic speaking Celts''] developed through a long and close connection to land. The early Scots saw the lives of trees interlocked with their own. Whether innate or hard-won, they perfected a balanced, reciprocal relationship with forest, and took from it knowing their own health depended on its preservation. Highland historian James Hunter believes their environmental awareness was unique, predating any other in Europe by hundreds of years.

With the coming of the English and the Industrial Revolution everything changed. Sixteenth century England was hungry for wood. Empire building had depleted their forests, and as English woodsmen worked their way north, into the Highlands, they brought with them not only axes, but a profoundly different philosophy of nature—a view aggressively and breathtakingly anthropomorphic, a view that pictured everything on earth as intended for “the benefit and pleasure of man,” and untamed woodland as something to be feared, exploited, and, if necessary, erased. Literature of the time bristled with references to “degenerated nature,” the “deformed chaos” of woodland, and odes to trees far different from those of the Celts:

…haughty trees, that sour
The shaded grass, that weaken thorn-set mounds
And harbour villain crows…

The English saw, in the Highlands, not only land darkened with trees, but incivility. They called the native Highlanders “savages” (from the Latin root silva, meaning forest), and their trees “an excrescence of the earth, provided by God for the payment of debts.” Through the axe, the Highlands and its people were to be cleansed of chaos and shown the path to culture. (via)

We know the corporate/government priorities – what will we allow to shape ours? I’m going to direct my energies toward developing a co-dependent relationship (based variously on food, medicine, fuel & building materials, as well as space to walk, recuperate and ‘commune’) with the woods that remain. For your own good I suggest you do the same.

My comment on the ‘save our forests’ petition (which I signed, with a few misgivings):

Nobody can ‘own’ land, but some peoples’ delusions that they do can bring about more destruction than others’. Especially the psycopaths (whose ‘personhood’ the law recognises) we know as corporations.

The land gives us life. Kill it and we kill ourselves.

————————-

* – of course nobody can ‘own’ land. I remember this quote from Crocodile Dundee:

Well, you see, Aborigines don’t own the land.They belong to it. It’s like their mother. See those rocks? Been standing there for 600 million years. Still be there when you and I are gone. So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on. (link)

Also, another Jensenism: land ownership exists only as a collective delusion, backed up by force and/or the threat of force. Nobody really owns any land, just pieces of paper which we all agree means they do.

† – the FC’s ‘Forestry Facts & Figures 2010‘ (PDF) give 37% for the EU, which goes up to 45% if Russia’s 49% forest coverage is included (Table 14). They agree on the UK’s 12% overall coverage.

**Update** – the FC’s David Edwards pointed me to these pages which refer to total accessible woodland in the UK, regardless of ownership (figures gathered by ‘Woods For People‘, a Woodland Trust project). The 73% ‘accessibility for recreation’ in the UK’s ‘total forest area’ (2005) from the first page appears to have been revised downwards to 49% (2004, 2009) because the results ‘were based in part on total land areas, rather than woodland areas’ (link – table, note 2). So about half, then. The second page provides an interesting footnote to the CRoW issue:

Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, most state woodland in England and Wales has been dedicated, but access to private woodland is permissive, not a legal right. In Scotland, the Land Reform Act 2003 gives a statutory right of responsible access, which in principle applies to almost all woodland [...] even if there are considerable access difficulties in practice.

For FC-owned woodland, I eventually tracked down these informative paragraphs from the results (PDF) to  the Woodland Trust’s 2004 ‘Space For People‘ report:

Role of the public forest estate

The public forest estate, owned and/or managed by the Forestry Commission in Great Britain and Forest Service in Northern Ireland, is crucially important for access across the UK. The Forestry Commission’s estate (by area) as a proportion of all accessible woodland is: England 66 per cent, Scotland 86 per cent and Wales 91 per cent. In Northern Ireland over 90 per cent of accessible woodland (by area) is Forest Service estate. Any proposed rationalisation of, or changes to, the status of the public forest estate could be potentially disastrous unless it is recognised that existing access should be protected, through binding agreements.

Role of the private woodland owner

Space for People demonstrates the deficit in accessible woods near to where people live and the extent to which this deficit can be offset by opening existing woods to the public. There is clearly a need to look more widely than publicly owned woods. Much of the available woodland is privately owned and is not currently permissively open to the public. If it were, the situation would be transformed. For example, if all privately owned woodland in England were accessible, the percentage of the population with access to a 20-hectare wood within 4 kilometres would increase from 55 per cent to 82 per cent. The corresponding figures for the other countries are: Wales 72 per cent to 98 per cent, Scotland 54 per cent to 95 per cent and Northern Ireland 50 per cent to 66 per cent. (p.22)

Phew! So I think I’m right in saying that if the FC sell off half of their land as proposed, and assuming all the private buyers put up fences and signs saying ‘trespassers will be prosecuted’, We The Public could lose legal access to between 33 (England) and 45.5 per cent (Wales) of the already minimal woodland coverage which landowners have granted us permission to visit.

** – sorry about all the ‘we’s – my inner propagandist wants to spread his views & attitudes!

‘Austerity Countryside’ – Correspondence with Mark Fisher

September 14, 2010

Looking back at the various things I’ve written over the years I notice that a lot of the best stuff went into email and other written conversations with other people; the ideas discussed often never making it into public expression in these soapbox blogposts. The style of writing is also somehow freer, more direct and easy-flowing, even though I still spend lengthy periods preparing and crafting my responses. You also get a truer snapshot into whatever processes the correspondents were going through at the time, without the fear of making embarrassing trip-ups in the public eye… At least until some shmuck decides to publish them ;) At least until recently didn’t people pay good money to read the letters of men & women they admired? Put your deep conversations up into the public sphere!

Recently I’ve been corresponding with Mark Fisher, who has a website called ‘Self-Willed Land: Advocacy for Wild Land and Nature‘. I got in touch originally because I was looking for a sane analysis of the implications of the UK government’s proposed 40% cuts to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which threaten to sell off some of the National Nature Reserves (NNRs) to private, profit-oriented companies. I thought his response merited a wider audience, so I reproduce it here with his permission. Check out the Guardian link first if you haven’t already heard the story.

*****

Hello Mark

Long-time-reader-first-time-writer. I’m struggling with what to make of these new ‘budget cuts for the environment’. Here’s the Guardian article a friend showed to me with the warning ‘prepare to be outraged’, but I found myself strangely unmoved by the mainstream Greens quoted in the text. Sample from the statement sent to the government by ’25 leading conservation groups’:

Reedbeds are dry and clogged with brambles; heathlands have vanished as scrub begins to take over. Wetlands have dwindled and rivers and canals have become clogged by invasive plants which threaten native species. The loss of money for wildlife-friendly farming has seen farmland birds resume their slide into extinction.

Then there was the usual bullshit towards the end about why we should care for the environment because it’s good for the economy (failing to recognise that an agricultural society is diametrically opposed to biodiversity practically by definition)… ‘You may well save a few pounds now but you will lose billions later’ – don’t these people know there’s a war on?? Don’t they understand the first thing about extractive ‘civilised’ economies? Pick a side already, Ahmed Djoghlaf!

I guess I’m fairly ignorant of the work these groups have done in the past and of the ‘successes’ they had thanks to their funding. I remembered you writing about the maintenance of heathland as an irrational, destructive process in some areas, and wondered whether other aspects of this kind of ‘conservation’ would be missed. I understand that privatisation has been a nightmare in every sector the Thatcherites and Blairites have introduced it over the last few decades. I just don’t bridle the way I’m supposed to when hearing about the Nightmare Takeover of brambles, scrub and invasive species. Can you help me articulate this different perspective?

Finally, assuming you do see a problem with these cuts, can you suggest a good way to fight them or point me toward any groups doing so in a non-capitulatory/compromising manner? The Guardian has been characteristically unhelpful in this regard (!) and none of my usual non-mainstream sources seem to be addressing the problem yet.

Yours sincerely, with thanks for all the great writing over the years
Ian

———

Hallo Ian

The key issue for me is the loss of opportunity if NNRs and the FC estate is sold off. It is not that I think they have any particular worth in terms of natural values at the moment, it is the fact that the kind of area protection of wildland that I would wish to see in Britain is much more easily realised if the land is in public ownership.

I have just finished a report for the Scottish Government on a review of the status and conservation of wildland in Europe. Everything I ever suspected about the crappiness of nature conservation in Britain is confirmed by contrast with the rest of Europe. I already knew it was crappy in comparison to N. America.

The basis of national protected area legislation across Europe is restriction on extractive activity, as well as public ownership. It is the difference between Primary, wild habitats that need no management intervention, and Secondary habitats that are only maintained through management intervention. It thus is about a separation of natural values from cultural values because the latter is inimical to the former. Public ownership takes away the burden on the land of having to give a monetary return. In Britain, the policy is maintenance of secondary habitats in multiple use areas, and the legislation – which is blind to ownership – is designed to ensure that happens, as is the UKBAP by the very choices for priorities within it that derive from Secondary habitats. A heath is a secondary habitat, and so is the other cherished landscape of the conservation industry – chalk grassland.

If we are ever to have substantial areas of Primary habitat other than the few scraps currently outside of extractive activity, then we need that public land as the land bank where the necessary ecological restoration can take place. Private ownership of land, even when supposedly in the benefical ownership of NGOs, always puts demands on it that cut cross non-intervention. Thus a private landowner will always want to make money out of their land, putting pressures on it that inevitably detract from wildness (even if it is just visitor services as a means of generating income), and the NGOs will want to “manage” the land for their single interest eg. birds, butterflies etc.

It is argued that ecological restoration will reduce biodiversity and make landscapes inaccessible – the Nightmare Takeover of brambles, scrub and invasive species. These critcisms are firmly rooted in the ideology of the conservation industry and the expoiters of land. That some other reality can exist is never allowed as it cuts across their vested interests. This is the dead hand that holds back any better prospect for wild nature in Britain. The fact that it is just prejudice is never pointed out. I will be writing shortly about the locations in England I have been to recently where human intervention was withdrawn or has not been a factor. They give the lie to this prejudice. It is of course, not in the interests of private land owners or the conservation industry for this other reality to be acknowledge because it will reduce their incomes – Higher Level Stewardship subsidy for private landowners, and all the public funding that the conservation industry hoovers in each year. For the latter, it also takes away their reason for being. Personally, I believe any funding cuts to the conservation industry can only be goods news. As to the farmers, there is no evidence of the rate of compliance with stewardship schemes, and so the funding they get doesn’t achieve what it is supposed to do anyway.

There is no coalition of people supporting the realisation of Primary habitats in Britain. I wish there was. That there are people with similar views is shown by some of the comments on articles in the Guardian. A Wildland Network was set up in 2005, but it fizzled out because it was split between those that wanted to take an uncompromising stand, and those that that didn’t really have any comitment to change. There are individual projects where there are people with some inspiring vision, such as Trees for Life and Carrifran Wildwood in Scotland. There are individual action groups who are fed up with the way the conservation industry is destroying their local wild nature. One of the most articulate is the Blacka Blogger (see http://theblackamoorsite.blogspot.com/). I helped set up a Wildland Research Institute in Leeds University as the means to do the work to provide evidence for a policy base for wildland in Britain. The Scottish Gov. report and its recommendations for Scotland is the first major outcome from that, and we will be bringing out a second report with a greater European focus. The latter has got us an invite to talk to the Environment Directorate in Brussels, which confirms what other people in Britain have recently found that continental Europe is a much more fertile ground for wildland policy.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in any of that which has sufficient edge for it to forestall an impending sell-off. But then again, there is no guarantee that there will be a change in nature policy that will seize the opportunity provided by public land for a national system of protected areas that is worth its name.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Mark

*****

continued in the comments…

Old Habits…

June 13, 2010

Sorry, couldn’t resist. Some politics links:

Seumas Milne writing in the Guardian’s ‘Comment Is Free’ about the Tories wanting to whitewash British imperial history in the schools. He takes the opportunity to remind his readers of the history which the rulers would prefer them to forget. Check out this paragraph for a scorching summary which you won’t hear every day:

The British empire was, after all, an avowedly racist despotism built on ethnic cleansing, enslavement, continual wars and savage repression, land theft and merciless exploitation. Far from bringing good governance, democracy or economic progress, the empire undeveloped vast areas, executed and jailed hundreds of thousands for fighting for self-rule, ran concentration camps, carried out medical experiments on prisoners and oversaw famines that killed tens of millions of people.

I had that going through my mind while watching a bit of the ‘Trooping The Colour‘ ceremony on the BBC yesterday and wondering what it would take for Englanders to look back on their history and state traditions with the same doubt and questioning as, say, Germans or Japanese. Well, I guess it’s pretty obvious – ‘we’ would have to fight a big war against other white people and lose… Also worth scrolling down through some of the comments to see what kind of readers Britain’s Leading Liberal Newspaper is attracting. My favourite was ‘Anarcher’s simple one-line dismissal: ‘I am British, and I am proud of our history.’

Comedian Mark Steel’s commentary on the IDF’s assault on the Gaza aid convoy, ‘Of course, they were asking for it‘. I especially liked this part:

That would be as logical as the statement from the Israeli PM’s spokesman – “We made every possible effort to avoid this incident.” Because the one tiny thing they forgot to do to avoid this incident was not send in armed militia from helicopters in the middle of the night and shoot people. I must be a natural at this sort of technique because I often go all day without climbing off a helicopter and shooting people, and I’m not even making every possible effort. Politicians and commentators worldwide repeat a version of this line. They’re aware a nation has sent its militia to confront people carrying provisions for the desperate, in the process shooting several of them dead, and yet they angrily blame the dead ones. One typical headline yesterday read “Activists got what they wanted – confrontation.” It’s an attitude so deranged it deserves to be registered as a psychosis, something like “Reverse Slaughter Victim Confusion Syndrome”.

Also, trust a comedian to draw the obvious conclusion which all the journalists are somehow blind to:

If this incident had been carried about by Iran, or anyone we were trying to portray as an enemy, so much condemnation would have been spewed out it would have created a vast cloud of outrage that airlines would be unable to fly through.

(See also the two-part Media Lens Alert, ‘Headshot – Propaganda, State Religion and the Attack on the Gaza Peace Flotilla‘)

Lastly, while the copy of the Evening Standard by my toilet is talking about British politicians who want Obama to stop bashing ‘British Petroleum’ because of all the pension money that supposedly comes from BP shares, this SchNEWS report comes into my inbox, and just leaves all the mainstream reporting I’ve seen in the dust:

BP has had over 8,000 minor and major recorded spills since 1990 alone. While all eyes have been on the current ecocide in the Gulf of Mexico, their Alaskan Pipeline burst in late May, spewing 100,000 gallons of oil into the environment. State inspectors say this occurred because “procedures weren’t properly implemented,” in other words – they didn’t give a damn.

The ho-hum lackadaisical attitude of [BP CEO] Tony Hayward is indicative of BP’s disaster response in general. It has been shocking to see BP’s slow response to contain the oil. There is a complete lack of any oil containment technology, beyond stringing some booms (vinyl tubes) over the ocean that deflate and blow away. While the oil industry has poured billions of dollars into riskier deep-water drilling, it has not invested in responses to the leaks and disasters that have increased four fold in the last decade.

As they say over at Media Lens (again), ‘We did not expect the Soviet Communist Party’s newspaper Pravda to tell the truth about the Communist Party, why should we expect the corporate press to tell the truth about corporate power?’

***

Hello to anybody visiting for the first time, after I finally got off my arse to publicise this blog a little. I feel like maybe apologising if the first post you see here definitely throws back to my older, indoor style of writing about faraway people & events that don’t touch my life in any immediate way.

Perhaps I could swing it like I did in the email I sent round, about politics and the media ‘growing on their own Disturbed Ground’. Or I could make the above more relevant to my direct experience by calling it a Useful Exercise in Applying Critical Thought which might come in handy when dealing with everyday matters. Or to have it as a ‘personal growth’ story I might include a paragraph agonising over whether & why I care about victims of the British Empire, pro-Palestinian human rights activists or those humans and non-humans killed or injured in the Gulf of Mexico, when I will most likely never meet or have a direct relationship with any of them*.

Maybe I’ll just say that it was what I felt like writing about today, and that I hope you enjoyed reading it. If not, stick around anyway cos I’ll probably write about something completely different next time :)

————-

* – (June 18) Oops! Maybe earlier I should have specified historical ‘victims of the British Empire’, because in one way or another I encounter its poison legacy in everyone I meet. Indeed, I consider myself to be in recovery from its desperate, grasping assault on my person (in the schools, in the churches, in the parenting atmosphere, in the media, in the political culture writ large…) – I know that I care about myself, at least sometimes ;)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers