Green Party News Newsletter for supporters of the Green Party September 2014

EDITORIALWelcome the latest Green Party News

(This issue features helpful design changes - I have increased the font size and each page is split into two columns to make it much easier to read on smaller screens and smart phones)

All the other parties offer the moon

Only the Green Party promises the earth

There’s a real buzz of excitement and energy running through the Green Party right now.

A sense of anticipation, belief even, that our vital messages are really beginning to get through to the public. A public who are increasingly realising that the future being offered by all the other parties is no future at all.This cautious optimism follows a most successful conference in Birmingham last week, where some 800 members attended to devise new policies and prepare for next year’s general election, in which we plan to field the greatest number of candidates ever.The party’s membership is continuing to grow rapidly. Having doubled over the past few years, it recently topped 18,500, its highest level ever, and well on target to hit 20,000 before 2015.We hope that you will come on board and add to the incredible momentum. Thank you for your support.

You can join the Green Party here:https://my.greenparty.org.uk/civicrm/membership/joining

I hope you enjoy this issue. Comments and suggestions are always welcome.Best wishes

Peter Barnett

Internal Communications Coordinatorinternalcommunications@greenparty.org.uk

in th i s i s sue 2 PEOPLE’S CLIMATE MARCH:This Sunday 21 September. Tens of thousands of people are flocking to London to call for real action on climate change, joining people in 100 countries across the world, 2 days before world leaders hold an urgent UN climate summit. Our numbers on the streets will influence their decisions. This is going to be massive, but every extra body counts. Please join us! The march starts from Temple at 12.30pm. SEE PAGE 2 fOR MORE DETAILS

3 Un REPORT REVEALS STARK REALITYA draft report from climate scientists again spells out the climate crisis we are facing - reminding you once again why you need to be marching next Sunday!

3 GREEn PARTY COnfEREnCE nEWSHigh drama as Greens debate whether to abandon their anti-nuclear tradition. Plus, changes at the top following leadership elections with keynote speeches.

5 nUCLEAR - nO THAnKS Does a future Green plan need nuclear? - Jonathan Essex argues no nuclear

7 nUCLEAR - YES PLEASE The lost generation ofnuclear power - Ian norris argues for nuclear energy

9 Green Party resources & local news10 Molly Scott Cato MEP reports after 3 months as a member of the European Parliament

11 Talking points - Green Politics12 The positive alternative to growth by Dr. Richard Lawson

13 Who’s Who in the Green Party

nATIOnAL PARTY OffICE020 7549 0310

office@greenparty.org.ukDevelopment House56-64 Leonard Street

London EC2A 4LT

www.greenparty.org.ukTwitter: @TheGreenParty

www.facebook.com/thegreenparty

2Activist

Sunday September 21, 1pm Temple Place, London

On the eve of a historic international summit on climate change, the Green Party is urging members to take to the streets and protest in support of real focussed action. We need a Green new Deal that invests in clean renewable energy, green public transport and wholesale energy conservation measures.

We need a global agreement that keeps fossil fuels in the ground and an urgent cessation of the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks. From melting glaciers to ocean acidification, biodiversity loss to rising sea levels, the threat of runaway climate change accelerates while policy makers remain in denial.

The Global Greens are supporting protests across the planet to end the suicidal policy of ignoring climate change or making it worse with the expansion of fracking, tar sands and other forms of extreme energy.

The People’s Climate March in London is being promoted by a large collection of organisations. We need a large turnout of Green Party members, complete with banners and placards!

The People’s Climate March starts at Temple Place, WC2 12.30pm nearest tube is Temple.Facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/1428960304030884/London website http://act.350.org/event/peoples_climate/7683Twitter @ClimateLdn #PCMLdn #PeoplesClimateLdn

Global website http://peoplesclimate.org/

If you can’t attend, make a pledge to Avaaz, see here:https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_march_nd_skel/?cl=567914408

3&v=44093&OtherAmount

People’s Climate March

Scientists are screaming from the rooftops that climate change isn’t just a bit of warming and some more storms. no exaggeration, our actual SURVIVAL is at risk - this is a fight to save the world.

Our biosphere is in a fragile balance. Warm it a bit, and feedback loops start to kick in. Warming melts the arctic ice that reflects sunlight, which means more is sunlight absorbed, which means more warming, which melts more ice, etc. These feedback loops have begun, and they’re approaching ‘tipping points’ where they spin out of our control, threatening everything we love.

The UN understands this, and they’ve called an emergency summit of world leaders in New York to discuss action, even inviting our movement into the meeting! The problem is, our heads of state are politicians, not scientists, and they respond to public pressure. They see the polls, but they ask, “where are the protests?” September 21st is our answer.

With thousands of organisations, from unions to faith groups, and hundreds of thousands of people already signed up, we’re about to launch the biggest climate change mobilisation in history, with marches from New York to Paris to Rio. On September 21st, we need to shake the world. To get there, we need to mobilise thousands of organisers, saturate subways and airwaves with ads, and mount an effective media operation.

GREATER MAnCHESTER MOVEMEnT JOInS WORLD In DEMAnDInG BETTER PLAnET

Sunday 21st SeptemberPiccadilly Gardens 11am

People’s Climate March and Lobby of Labour Party Conference

COnfEREnCEfor a future that doesn’t cost the Earth

The International fight for climate jobsSaturday 20th September 2014London Metropolitan University

For details click belowhttp://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-international-fight-for-climate-jobs-for-

a-future-that-doesnt-cost-the-earth-tickets-5743228150

3Activist

Runaway growth in greenhouse gas emissions is overwhelming all political efforts to deal with the problem, raising the risk of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts” over the coming decades, according to a draft of a major new United nations (Un) report.Declining grain production, higher seas, devastating heat waves, torrential rain and other climate extremes around the world are problems that are likely to intensify.

Urgency of risk intensifying as emissions riseThe report was drafted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), a body of scientists appointed by the UN to review climate research. Using blunter, more forceful language than the reports that underpin it, the new draft highlights the urgency of the risks that are likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

The report found:Companies and governments have identified reserves of these fuels at least four times larger than could safely be burned if global warming is to be kept to a tolerable level.

To limit the risks to future generations the vast majority of these valuable fuels must remain in the ground.

Rising political efforts to limit emissions are being overwhelmed by construction of facilities like new coal-burning power plants.

From 1970-2000, greenhouse gases emissions grew at 1.3% a year. From 2000-2010, the rate jumped to 2.2%, and seem to be accelerating further in this decade.

China now accounts for half the world’s coal use, in large part to produce goods for consumption in the West.

It is still technically possible to limit global warming to an internationally agreed upper bound of 3.6 degrees f above the preindustrial level. But continued political delays for another decade or two will make that unachievable without severe economic disruption.

failure to act The draft report came a month before the summit meeting of world leaders in New York that is meant to set the stage for a potential global agreement on emissions to be completed next year. However, concern is growing among climate experts that the leaders may not offer adequate commitments in their speeches on Sept. 23, and instead continue the political inaction that has marked the climate issue for decades.

The failure to heed scientific warnings about the risks have made large-scale climatic shifts inevitable. Lowering emissions could slow the expected pace of change, providing critical decades for human society and the natural world to adapt.

The earth has warmed by 1.5 degrees F since the Industrial Revolution, and that seemingly modest increase is causing the effects already being seen around the world. A continued rapid growth of emissions in coming decades could lead to a global warming exceeding 8 degrees F.

Warming that substantial would almost certainly have catastrophic effects, including a mass extinction of plants and animals, huge shortfalls in food production, extreme coastal flooding and the inevitable chaos that would follow.

U.n. Draft Report reveals alarming truth

4Activist

nuclear meltdown averted at Conference?

Total opposition to nuclear energy has always been a cornerstone of Green Politics and Greens across the world campaign against

it as vigorously as ever. A majority of Greens remain steadfastly against nuclear energy and a change in this position would signal a monumental policy reversal, with wide-ranging consequences, impacting on our relationships with the Green movement, our sister parties and numerous voters/supporters and members for whom this is a fundamental issue.

nuclear surpriseThere was, therefore, a great deal of consternation if not alarm amongst members when the Final Agenda for the conference appeared featuring a series of amendments added to an Energy Voting Paper which, if passed, would utterly transform the Party into a fully-fledged pro-nuclear policy!Many believed that the amendments were unconstitutional because normally major policy changes have to undergo an extensive period of scrutiny and consultation before appearing at a conference for debate and voting. But party officials insisted they were in order and they remained on the agenda.At the conference, a procedural motion was put to the members to have the nuclear amendments thrown out without debate but it was defeated. However, after the amendments had been debated by conference delegates, they were voted down by a sizable majority, although a surprisingly large number of members voted in favour (around 20-25%).Meanwhile, the question as to whether they should have been allowed to appear on the agenda rages on, alongside the question as to whether the party’s policy making process is need of a major overhaul.

new faces at the topLeadership election resultsJust prior to conference the results were announced for the leadership elections, which take place every two years.The Party Leader, Natalie Bennett, was re-elected unopposed. By way of new Party rules, the Deputy Leader role had to be filled by two persons, one of each gender. The only female candidate, Amelia Womack, was elected. The contest for the male position was, in contrast, hotly contested with 5 candidates.

The existing Deputy Leader, Will Duckworth, was widely expected to win, having proven to be very popular, hard-working and most successful in the role over the past two years. It came as a great surprise, therefore, when he was narrowly beaten by Shahrar Ali. At conference, Shahrar gave an outstanding speech, brilliant both in content and delivery, focussing on discrimination, which was met with wide acclaim.Amelia Womack also demonstrated her ability to give a confident and inspiring speech so, together with Natalie and Shahrar, the Party has a superb team to lead the way over the next two years.Links to all the keynote speeches below:

CAROLInE LUCAS MP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtEnFiOgsfA&list=UUGN-NVD_FT_Kyv_VdUxzc7A&index=2

nATALIE BEnnETT - Leader http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgttLULJlrA&list=UUGN-NVD_FT_Kyv_VdUxzc7A

AMELIA WOMACK - Deputy Leader http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV2P1QkGpm0&index=3&list=UUGN-NVD_FT_Kyv_VdUxzc7A

Leader of the Green Party Natalie Bennett flanked by the two new Deputy Leaders Amelia Womack and ShahrarAli

Will Duckworth congratulates his successor, ShahrarAli

by Peter Barnett

5Activist

by Jonathan Essex

The UK is in desperate need of better energy and industrial policies. Ongoing industrialisation is more in the form of a

government-sponsored dash to incinerate more waste and frack our countryside while further embedding globalisation. As the Government’s energy strategy focusses on shale gas and nuclear, it has abandoned any real commitment to renewables, so needed to eliminate our fossil fuel dependence once and for all.

The UK is defying global energy trends by losing renewable energy jobs and expertise, while subsidising new nuclear at a time when Deutsche Bank analysts expect solar PV to be sustainable at grid parity in three-quarters of the world’s market by 2015. Britain is so behind the curve on its energy and industrial policy that what is needed can appear almost idealistic, even when based on existing practice elsewhere. Calling for an energy price freeze for the big six energy companies is not enough. So, what can we do instead? How different does a Green future look in terms of energy, industry and jobs? This article aims to introduce a way forward – but for greater details see Section B1 in the conference agenda here.

EnergyFirstly, energy. The starting point for the Energy Policy is how much energy we need in the first place, and how much waste can be avoided through energy efficiency and changed behaviours. So, the updated policy is based on a practical analysis of how much energy is needed, and how much of this could be generated locally and nationally through renewable energy (the detailed analysis is shared at http://my.greenparty.org.uk/forum/5256).

The underlying challenge is a 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – the target in our climate change policy - which is in turn consistent with the latest climate science. For example, Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre in Manchester is calling for global carbon emissions globally to be reduced to zero by 2035, with greenhouse gas emissions resulting only from food production and global deforestation by that time (http://www.whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_andersson_144.pdf). This proposes policies and regulations that prioritise reduced energy demand and improved energy efficiency first, while increasing renewable energy generation and storage (as needed) to meet this demand.

The policy also ensures we do this without ignoring the challenge of transport (which requires re-localisation - as developed further in our policy manual, Policies for a

Sustainable (PSS)) It also highlight the new enterprises and skills, democracy and behaviour change needed to create a sustainable energy future.

Energy and resource useWhat about the 50% of our carbon emissions that are caused by what we build and buy? Addressing this requires a rethinking and restructuring of our existing industrial sectors, while developing new enterprises that enable transition to a much more locally sustainable and resilient society.

The industrial strategy therefore focusses on resources and energy that are used – in our wider industrial production rather than just directly as consumers. This includes consideration of, not just manufacturing, but also the energy, construction and waste sectors – changing what we produce, how we produce it, and how much. This will mean scaling up sustainable enterprises and increasing jobs in some areas, while reducing resource and carbon intensity overall, by transforming high-carbon industries and facilitating wider behaviour change away from throw-away consumerism. This will change both our resource throughput and entail a shift from continually expanding to reducing the impact of our existing built environment, both locally and globally. It also (alongside the Workers’ Rights section of the PSS) needs good governance of business.

The circular economyThese energy and industrial strategies are based on the same premise – to reduce our resource and energy use and climate impacts to within environmental limits, and then expand a resource efficient (zero carbon, zero waste) alternative that embeds energy efficiency, renewables and durability/resilience into the fabric of the wider UK economy. This is an alternative to an economy reliant upon cheap (mainly fossil fuel) energy and increasing production of consumer goods. The updated policy puts the physical scale of our productive economy within environmental limits and focused on creating a circular economy – one that is both 100% renewable and delivers quality of life for

Updating our Energy and Industrial Policies – Does a Green plan for our future need nuclear?

(continued on next page)

6Activist

all. This means changing our measurement of economic success from how much we consume to our quality of life, and the wellbeing that results from what we make and do. As a result, many of the choices that stem from the policy principles set out in these draft Energy and Industry and Jobs strategies are similar. For example, we propose to focus on:

Limiting energy demand, through policies such as a massive UK-wide energy-retrofit of buildings to scale-down the need for energy in the first place. This is key to being able to deliver the energy needed through renewables alone. It would allow us to choose a future very different from current business-as-usual ever-expanding energy needs, where the lights (we are told) must be kept on by a mix of mass import of clear-cut primary-growth forests for biomass, a re-industrialisation of our landscape to frack and otherwise extract unconventional oil and gas, and on building nuclear power stations.

The creation of a rebalanced economy – promoting re-manufacturing, re-purposing through re-use, and high-value recycling. That is, an industrial policy that provides a real alternative to technofixes that require our society to remain wasteful, far beyond the timescale for climate tipping points. This is why incinerators are excluded from our industrial strategy (in line with our current Waste Policy) and existing ones would receive a carbon tax, should the energy policy be voted through.

In both cases this means challenging the root cause of unsustainable consumption – the overall scale of energy and resource use and waste produced in the first place. Whether our individual concern is about greenhouse gases, rainforest destruction or perhaps how unrecyclable metallic plastic film used to make crisp packets ends up in the pacific waste gyre, affecting marine life worldwide – our policy aims to re-create the possibility of living within our planet’s limits. And doing so not by creating a haven for a few high-consuming industries or individuals but ensuring that we leave space for nature, and for all humanity to have a decent quality of life. So, by starting out by conserving our energy and saving our furniture, we might have space left to conserve nature and save our forests!

Choices to makePlease have a look at these policies and see what you think. The key point for debate on these policies still leave a lot of choices to be made, including amendments proposing the question:

Do we accept coal power should be used to trial carbon capture and storage – or is this a pipe dream?

Should we commit to zero carbon as part of our 90% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 target (which includes other greenhouse gases, mainly from farming and forestry)? This will help us to put greater pressure to divest in fossil fuels completely, as soon as possible – and is consistent with challenges such as 350.org and Zero Carbon Britain.

Should we keep our current ‘tradeable energy quotas’ so energy access for all is still provided? Carbon tax at a level to avoid global warming could be punitive (Stern in June 2014 suggested a $280/tonne CO2 carbon tax is needed from now to reflect the risks in the latest IPCC report).

Should we prioritise grid access for renewables ahead of a base-load for thermal (fossil or nuclear) power stations – which will help make the economic climate for renewables even better.

The nuclear optionAnd, probably most controversially, should we add nuclear power to these energy and industrial policies? This is hardest to justify as nuclear competes with renewables for finance, and the nuclear amendment is based on a view that the proposed policies for energy demand-reduction are not achievable. While the nuclear industry argues for a maximum of 15% renewable energy (and 35% electricity) there is little hope for a sustainable future – especially as the Government’s new hidden subsidy (Contracts for Difference) proposed for Hinkley Point C and other new nuclear will result in a direct reduction in finance for renewables.

Perhaps more importantly, adding adding nuclear power to these policies would mean the Green Party abandoning a long-held non-nuclear stance which has been one of its unique selling points (USPs), and would raise issues in our relations with other EU Greens, in part due to our commitment to peace, and concerns about other issues such as how we deal with nuclear waste.

Vision of a Green futureHopefully, these policy refreshes will lead to the collective agreement which we can take on the campaign trail, alongside the wider social justice and environmental movements to help make a sustainable future a reality.

The policies do require a degree of re-imagining what is possible to better envision what a sustainable future might be, not just for our household and travel – but what makes our lifestyles possible. It might be achieved using People’s Design Labs and green incentives to regulate and challenge business to rethink industrial built-in obsolescence and take ownership for the waste they produce. It could mean creating new, green jobs across the UK instead of house building in South East England, which reinforces the focus of our economy where it is already strongest (in London) while doing nothing to address the shortage of jobs where communities are struggling, and the increasingly precarious nature of employment across the UK.

The rethinking required for our energy policy is no less challenging. We think the way forward is to scale-down our resource and energy use and focus on creating jobs before infrastructure – an economy where we are all empowered to make, do and mend a better future. A 100% renewable, reusable way of life, replacing continued economic growth in our energy and resource use with a RE-conomy for the UK. What do you think?

7Activist

by Ian Norris

The biggest challenge facing renewables today is intermittency. The wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine on a given patch of land 100%

of the time, but our energy needs can’t just be dialled down when the weather doesn’t feel like providing.

Energy storage is a massive unsolved problem that will take decades for us to master, and we just don’t have the luxury to wait. To solve climate change we need to act now, and we need a solution that scales.The rare earth minerals used to make wind turbines and solar panels are among the rarest on the planet. Wind turbines and solar panels don’t last forever; 12-15 years is a realistic figure for economical lifespan of a wind turbine - intermittent power that needs to be backed up with some kind of energy storage or another energy source.

(Source http://www.eurelectric.org/media/61388/flexibility_report_final-2011-102-0003-01-e.pdf)

Germany, a supposed flagship of renewables, is burning lignite to back up its renewables, and its carbon output has barely been dented by the switch. The capacity factor for wind in the UK is approximately 28%. This means the other 72% needs to come from elsewhere. Even at 100% efficient energy storage you would still need over three times the generating capacity of your peak wind output to meet demand, and that still doesn’t account for long periods of low wind (see graph). To me this makes renewables look a lot less appetising, so what other options are there? I want to focus today on another practical and clean alternative: nuclear power.

The nuclear alternativeAs long as a meltdown is even a remote possibility, nuclear power will always be considered unsafe, but it is in fact among the safest energy technologies we have, even beating rooftop solar (by deaths per unit of energy). The US is also buying nuclear weapons from Russia in order to recycle them into fuel, so nuclear energy can actually be a solution to proliferation concerns too.When most people think of nuclear power they think about antiquated technologies used at plants like Chernobyl. However, the Chernobyl plant could not exist today as the various safety mechanisms that failed and led to the disaster were poorly engineered and would fail to meet even a fraction of today’s safety regulations. Today’s reactors are designed with safety first, engineered to prevent the chain reaction from running too fast and the reactor from getting too hot. Newer reactors are ‘walk away safe’, safe even if there is nobody there to operate it. Even so, modern reactors are still built as if these catastrophic failures could occur, with features such as reinforced steel-concrete domes to keep radioactive material inside the core should anything go disastrously wrong. Chernobyl didn’t have this. The Fukushima plant was somewhat better than Chernobyl but still came from the same era of design. It would be impossible for another Chernobyl or Fukushima-type disaster to happen with modern design reactors.

The new generation of reactorsThe Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR, pronounced ‘lifter’) is a radical new design of nuclear reactor that uses a liquid fuel. It is passively safe, immune to meltdowns (because it’s already a liquid), performs under low pressure (and therefore cannot ‘explode’) and can consume existing radioactive waste stockpiles from other reactors. The technology is also difficult to proliferate and can produce important radioactive isotopes used by the medical profession. (continued on next page)

The lost generation of nuclear power

8Activist

LFTRs are also (relatively) cheap and quick to build as they do not rely on large pressure vessels that need to withstand immense pressures. The fuel is plentiful, almost free and requires almost no refinement. The US built a LFTR in the 1960s, while India and China are exploring Thorium as a power source right now. I’ve heard claims that, with proper funding, we can have our first grid-generating LFTR within five years and mass produced units within ten. If you want a way to solve climate change and get rid of nuclear waste, this is your silver bullet.So, what’s the catch? Funding and additional research. Energy research is an expensive business and, unsurprisingly, a technology that threatens to end the razorblade model for nuclear fuel is not popular with executives within the nuclear industry. It will take outside influence before this technology is developed into a commercial reality.Another interesting range of reactor designs are the ‘fast reactors’ such as the Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) or Lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR). These share similar advantages to that of the LFTR. It will also be possible for smaller-scale reactors to be built in the future at a significantly reduced cost, and there have been some really interesting developments in this field very recently. However until the technology has been proven I won’t start shouting about it from the rooftops.Finally, we have the holy grail of nuclear power: fusion. Although a promising technology we are very unlikely to see fusion in production in time to solve climate change.There are many more nuclear technologies, but I’ve only covered a few. So, when, you ask, is nuclear power safe? Well, which one? The future of nuclear power is bright and I think it is counterproductive to tar all technologies with the same forty year old brush. Personally my money is on the LFTR, but we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket.

The case for rising energy usageSo now that we’re on the same page about the technology, let’s see what we can achieve with it. Whether or not you believe renewables can meet demand, I’m going to argue that we should be increasing our energy consumption rather than decreasing it, and we should start with the poorest countries first.There is a direct correlation between energy consumption and education. This makes sense because if people have to walk miles a day to wash their clothes in the nearest river it leaves very little time to teach their children or learn something new. Additionally, there is a direct correlation between education and birth rate - as people become more educated they have fewer children.All these people want a quality of life that we already take for granted in developed countries, and they won’t take no for an answer. These countries are going to take the cheapest route, and that is currently fossil fuels. To convert these countries to clean energy the solution has to be cheaper to produce per unit of energy than coal. The only technologies capable of doing this at the price and scale needed to displace fossil fuels are nuclear and hydroelectric. Hydroelectric is a great technology if you happen to be located at a suitable dam location, but it can’t be deployed everywhere. You also have to weigh the environmental

impact of building a dam against the carbon it will offset. By giving these countries nuclear power you can kill multiple birds with one stone - improve quality of life, improve education and cut the birth rates of the fastest growing countries.

Towards a better futureThe developing world will achieve nuclear power eventually, but if we can help them along the path by selling them reactors and the expertise to run them, they can use the best technologies now rather than them walking the path alone without learning from our earlier mistakes.If we can end up with a surplus in our energy economy we can begin using the extra energy for interesting things like advanced recycling and carbon capture technologies. We can actually start extracting CO2 from the atmosphere rather than just cutting our emissions. This all requires an increase in our energy usage rather than the adoption of a strategy that requires a reduction.Nuclear power currently has an image issue, and due to the Chernobyl disaster an entire generation of people lost faith in nuclear power. Think of all the power left un-generated in power plants that never opened because of public outcry. Power that could have displaced our use of fossil fuels. Had we truly embraced nuclear power I don’t think we’d be facing quite the same urgency in resolving climate change as we do today.If we are willing to consider all energy research based on its merits I believe our future looks very different. We can develop more effective recycling processes, and start reversing rather than slowing down climate change, allowing us to focus on the other major challenges rather than fighting over our energy requirements. With surplus energy we can produce better fertilisers and take us closer to ending world hunger. You never know, it might even help us become more civilised.For more information, the following search terms will be of use: thorium remix; LFTR; Germany lignite; TED washing. Additionally there are two films ‘Pandora’s Promise’ and ‘Windfall’, both available on Netflix and iTunes.I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Please join us in discussion on the Green Party forums, and fill out our quick survey:

http://tinyurl.com/GPNuclear

Join the debateNOTE: This, and many other articles are also published on the Green Party Members’ Website , to open a discussion forum about the issues raised. Join the Green Party to access the site and share your opinions, thoughts and ideas with the rest of us.

9Activist

Green Party resources and news

Congratulations to Jenny Bartlett & Jane Lacey, our newest County &

Town Councillors!Tories lose control of county

18 July 2014

THE GREEn PARTY claimed a seat from the Conservatives at Leominster South by-election in July.

Town councillor Jenny Bartlett won a seat on Hereford-shire Council after receiving 384 votes. Tory Wayne Rosser came second with 222 votes and Independent candidate Angela Pendleton took 198 votes.

UKIP’s candidate Elizabeth Portman-Lewis claimed 111 votes while Labour candidate Emma Pardoe received 99.

And Jane Lacey, also a Green Party candidate, claimed a seat on Leominster Town Council after taking 726 votes.

The Leominster South by-election was triggered by the death of Tory councillor Roger Hunt after a long illness.

In Ledbury, It’s Our County secured a seat on Herefordshire Council with town councillor and former mayor Terry Widdows receiving 835 votes.

It means that the Conservatives have lost their majority on Herefordshire Council.

Greens triumphant in Leominster South by-election

Cllr Jenny Bartlett

NEW STOCKin the

Green ShopOn-line shop for all your Green Party campaigning ,

fundraising and election materials.

Posters, leaflets, flyers, rosettes, badges, hi-vis vests...

More products are available at the shop including:Keep Calm and Vote Green posters

New badges and rosetteshttp://shop.greenparty.org.uk/

NEW STOCK

http://shop.greenparty.org.uk/collections/products?page=1

Green Group newsletterA weekly collection of links to Green Party stories in the media

free by E-mail subscriptionLinks to stories about Green Party luminaries, councillors, local

parties, press releases and much more . Links to videos and photos.Click on link below or copy address to your browser:

http://paper.li/CllrMediaReview/1377242630

Green PartyManifesto on Animal Protection

Download a copy from here:

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/04/10/green-animal-manifesto-greens-are-the-voice-for-animals-in-europe/

10Activist

Molly Scott Cato MEP reports

It was the issue of peace that first brought me into politics: when I was just 16 I founded Bath Youth CnD. It was a time when every day was overshadowed by the fear of the three-minute warning and we really felt the urgency of the calls for nuclear disarmament. Although I have done little in the areas of peace and foreign affairs in recent years, these have become an immediate focus following my election to the European Parliament in May.

The catalyst for me was seeing a shameless TV interview with Tony Blair, during which he not only failed to take responsibility for the destabilisation of the Middle East as a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, but actually dared to claim that it was our failure to bomb Syria that was the explanation for the rise of ISIL. This apologist for aggression is still the peace envoy for the Quartet Group, the only existing international process tasked to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. I tried to introduce an amendment calling for him to be removed during the European Parliament debate on the Israel-Palestine situation but it was opposed by the larger groups.

Wool Against WeaponsMy next venture was more fun, although just as serious, and came about thanks to my lovely friend and fellow Stroudie Jaine Rose. She had caught the country’s imagination with the idea of knitting a pink wool scarf long enough to link the nuclear weapons sites at Burghfield and Aldermaston. So on a beautiful sunny August day I was able to join hundreds of others for a Wool Against Weapons action to protest against this abomination and remind the crowd that Greenham women are still everywhere, but this time they have brought their daughters with them (and hopefully taught them to knit too).

Although the issue of the future of Trident is being ignored by the mainstream media it is a key issue in the debate over Scottish independence. The Scottish Nationalist Party has made it clear that, if the YES side wins, the nuclear submarine base at Faslane will be closed. Earlier this month Royal United Services Institute published a report

suggesting that the beautiful Cornish town of Falmouth is the most promising site to replace Faslane - a suggestion we were able to condemn in the strongest possible terms:

“The legality, morality and cost of keeping nuclear weapons anywhere in the UK is totally unjustified. There is no such thing as a safe place to store weapons with the ability to deliver around 8 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Not Faslane, not Plymouth and not Falmouth. I will do all I can to resist these deadly weapons being based in the South West; highly dangerous in themselves, they would also make Falmouth a potential terrorist target. I will work with my Green colleagues in the European Parliament to stop the proliferation of arms and rid Europe of nuclear weapons.”

While I do not consider myself any sort of elder stateswoman, I have to accept that I have now been on the planet, and involved in Green politics, for quite a number of years. My message to people who have not lived through the history that I can actually remember is that we should not let our world go back to the entrenched blocs of the Cold War. The risk of this has two origins: the incomprehensible situation where we seem to have forgotten what diplomacy means, and the pressure for conflict created by the trade in arms.

UkraineIn Ukraine we are trading insults and sanctions but there has been no attempt to sit the parties down in a room and work to achieve the best outcome for all sides. Soldiers and weapons can only delay this stage, so why can’t we cut out the months and years of suffering and death and move to the negotiations?

The EU organises its external affairs through High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, who is shortly to be replaced. As Greens we need to argue that the focus of the new holder of this vital role should be on peace-building, both between our own borders and across the world. This, together with calling for the removal of Tony Blair as peace envoy and the ending of the international arms trade, are vital steps towards making the world a safer and more peaceful place for all the world’s people.Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for the South Westwww.mollymep.org.uk

Good news in the Stroud District Council by-election 7th August caused by the election of Molly Scott Cato to Europe. Martin Baxendale, pictured here with Molly, gets elected with a 35% turn out. Green Party: 291 votes, Labour 230 votes, UKIP 75 votes.

11Activist

Talking points - Green Politics

Wiki site for child sex abusefor years, powerful people have been covering up and blocking investigations of child sex abuse. Although there are only about 20 names pointed to by witnesses, they are very big names, and the Security Services (MI5 and MI6) and Special Branch seem to be deeply involved. Therefore it is not going to be an easy task to get to truth and justice. Real democracy and fair and honest politics in our country cannot happen if there is a group of people in the highest ranks of authority who see themselves as above and beyond the law; who believe they can manipulate authority and avoid capture. This a form of corruption, corruption that misuses political power not for money but for sexual gratification. Corruption of this kind is intolerable, especially as it is cause of so much human misery.

A Green Party member has created a wiki website - that collates and organises the vast amount of information about child sex abuse by so-called VIPs. The URL is:

https://vipcsa.wikidot.com

Here you can find links to no less than 38 instances of cover ups. We can be proud that Caroline Lucas was among the seven MPs who called for an inquiry into this scandal, but the party needs to be fully informed to get behind the growing campaign for truth and justice for victims of abuse by powerful political figures.

What is Green politics?The Green Party has good policies – policies the country needs – but is the Green Party just another technocrat party? One uncontaminated by corruption and fear of the Murdoch press? That would make it the best party! But I don’t think we are a technocrat party. At the heart of Green politics is our concern to preserve the natural world – the rich variety of plants, animals and habitats provided by half a billion years of evolution. And we share this concern with many traditional Conservatives. We also share with Conservatives an appreciation of markets – regulated markets of course – as a way of fostering innovation and avoiding Big Brother. But the Conservative Party is now run by market fundamentalists – neoliberal extremists who think society needs no relationships that are not commercial. It’s also a mouthpiece for businesses that destroy, not only the natural world, but the social world in which we live. So we cannot be Conservatives. And preserving is not enough. Greens want to see a better world which is necessarily a different world. We believe in peace, democracy, the welfare state and the value of public institutions, especially schools – commitments we share with the political Left. But the Labour Party forgot these commitments under Blair and Miliband has yet to restore them. Beyond the Labour Party we see a variety of Marxist sects – committed to obsolete ideologies and their own holy books. So we cannot be a Marxist sect. So the Green Party shares values with both Right and Left. Are we then a party of the middle ground? Liberals with principles? Again, no. Green politics is about power – all politics is – but it is not FOR power. We are not advocates for landowners, businesses or even the working class. Our ultimate focus is not on relations between people. Instead Green politics exists to establish a new balance between human society and the rest of the natural world. As Greens we see humanity as one species – but a species whose very success requires it to confront unprecedented responsibilities for its own future and that of the living planet. We MUST create a world which contains fewer people making fewer demands on the natural world. We need to leave room for nature – for the wild animals that inspire us, the glaciers that feed the great rivers of Asia, the ocean life that absorbs our CO2, and more. Too much more to say. That is the core of Green politics and the new thing we bring to human politics.David Flint, Enfield Green Party

Join the debateNOTE: This, and many other articles are also published on the Green Party Members’ Website , to open a discussion forum about the issues raised. Join the Green Party to access the site and share your opinions, thoughts and ideas with the rest of us.

12Activist

By Richard Lawson

for companies, the imperative that next year's profits must be bigger than this year's profits

drives all manner of commercial perversions, for instance, planned obsolescence. Many Asian manufactured items are little more than pretend replicas. They consume energy and materials to create items that look real but are not fit for purpose. Screws whose heads give way as soon as any torque is applied to them. Cutting tools that cannot take and hold an edge.

British manufacturing would do well to look at producing durable, if expensive, quality goods that can be repaired instead of disposed of once wear has taken its toll.

ConsumptionConsumption ranges from the necessary to the frivolous. As a doctor I can state with absolute confidence that consumption of food and water is vital for human life. Warm (but not overly warm) homes are also vital to life. Both of these require consumption. We cannot do without consumption.

After these necessities, we need a variety of tools and instruments (in the widest sense, to include things such as transportation). Some tools are vital to support the primary level of function (water, food, warmth, shelter and waste management), and others are in fact toys to play with - such as musical instruments. Play is a vital part of human existence. We do need some of these, but at a reasonable level, not the tsunami of perishable goods ("stuff") that industry is throwing at us.

There is such a thing as natural greed and competitiveness, but many millions are spent each year on advertising to whip this greed up into a lather of insatiable desire. This money is not committed by the advertisers just for fun. It is a serious propaganda effort to bend our minds into consuming the item advertised. It’s good that we have policy to reduce advertising.

A need for growth? Why is there a need for growth? Part of it, planned obsolescence, is easy to understand. My sister has a functioning, absolutely silent refrigerator that was built in the 1930s. I think it may be an "Einstein" fridge. If consumer goods were made to last like that, the market would soon become saturated, and manufacturers would drive themselves out of business. So things are designed to need replacement.

But why does the market have to grow? Hoogendijk ("The Economic Revolution", Green Print/Jan van Arkel, 1991) finds one answer in the creation of money through debt.

The positive alternative to growthHoogendijk says: Imagine two companies, A and B, supplying the market with widgets. They are in balanced competition, each having half of the market. Now A takes out a loan and buys some machinery that drives his productivity up. He lays off workers, and soon has 75% of the market. B is therefore obliged to take out a loan to buy machinery and lay off workers. A and B are in balance again - but now they each have to service a debt to pay interest. They are therefore obliged to expand into other markets. Debt interest obliges them to grow.

Debt interest is not the only driver of economic growth, but it is a significant one and it’s good that Green Party policy acknowledges this fact.

There are many other aspects to be considered, because economics is a system, and systems are necessarily multifactorial. As humans we tend to oversimplify, but at the same time, it is necessary to hold on to those things that are certain.

Positive alternative to growthTherefore I would like to reassert these certainties:

1) Throughput of carbon and materials is the No 1 economic problem that we face.

2) Growth of this system is the second problem, the icing on the cake as it were.

3) In making the transition to a zero-throughput, cyclical economy that is structured as if people matter, we can promise something near full employment.

4) Full employment helps to reduce inequality, since the gap in money and self-esteem between workers and the unemployed disappears.

5) Other measures (taxation of the super-rich) will further bring us towards more equitable distribution of wealth, and that means a happier and more healthy society.

Therefore we can indeed offer voters something positive to look forward to, rather than asking them to vote for the misery of perpetual recession.

Further reading

http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/banking-system-demands-and-creates.html - (article followed by lengthy discussion with Alison Marshall)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/28/debunking-chris-huhne-paean-uk-growth

Dr. Richard Lawson

13Activist

GREEn PARTY CEnTRAL OffICE020 7549 0310

office@greenparty.org.uk

CAROLInE LUCAS MPfor Brighton PavilionHOUSE Of COMMOnS

London SW1A 0AA

CATH MILLER - Chief of Staff 020 7219 7025JEnnY WILLIAMS - Press Officer 07590 050 565

clucasmedia@parliament.uk caroline.lucas@greenparty.org.uk

Twitter: @CarolineLucas

https://www.facebook.com/caroline/pageVisit Caroline’s website to subscribe to weekly email news bulletins

http://www.carolinelucas.com/

JEAn LAMBERT MEP for London

jeanlambert@greenmeps.org.uk http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk

Twitter: @GreenJeanMEPFacebook: http://www.tinyurl.com/

jeanlambert

Press OfficerBen Duncan

THE EUROPEAn PARLIAMEnT

KEITH TAYLOR MEPfor the South East

keithtaylor@greenmeps.org.ukhttp://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk

Twitter: @GreenKeithMEP

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/KeithTaylor MEP

Constituency CoordinatorKrysia Williams

nATALIE BEnnETTLeader of the Green Partyleader@greenparty.org.uk

http://www.nataliebennett.co.uk

https://twitter.com/natalieben

https://www.facebook.com/GreenNatalieBennett

JEnnY JOnESLondon Assembly Member

Dep Chair Police & Crime Committee

jenny.jones@london.gov.uk

Twitter: @greenjennyjones

http://t.co/BA70H5w5MY

http://t.co/6Isc6vT6ZlOffice ManagerTom Chance

DARREn JOHnSOnLondon Assembly MemberChair of the London Assembly

darren.johnson@london.gov.uk

@DarrenJonhsonAMhttp://london.greenparty.org.uk/

elected-greens/assembly.html

Press OfficerIan Wingrove

Baroness Jonesof Moulsecoomb

Who’s Who in the Green Party

MOLLY SCOTT CATO MEP for the South West & Gibralta

Molly.ScottCato@europarl.europa.euTwitter: @MollyMEP

https://www.facebook.com/molly.scottcato?fref=ts

Press OfficerAndrew Bell

abell@phonecoop.coop

THE HOUSE Of COMMOnS

THE GREEn PARTY LEADERSHIP

THE LOnDOn ASSEMBLY

THE HOUSE Of LORDS

SHAHRAH ALIDeputy Leader

Twitter: @ShahrarAlihttps://www.facebook.com/shahrar.

ali?fref=ts

AMELIA WOMACKDeputy Leader

Twitter: @Amelia_Womack

https://www.facebook.com/ameliahelenwomack?fref=ts

Green Activist promoted by Peter Barnett on behalf of the Green Party both at Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT