Real Men Carry Plastic Bags? Observations from the retail front line.

I’ve been working in a convenience store for the past couple of months. It’s one of those familiar, country wide franchises; bigger than a newsagents but smaller than a supermarket, located in a suburban residential area with a mixed clientele in terms of age, gender and social background. A few weeks ago I was listening to Frank Mitchel on the radio talking about the proposed bag tax that is in the pipe line here in NI that follows in the wake of similar schemes in Wales and ROI. It was a very one sided feature, with a representative from a retail association talking about the unfairness of such a tax, the extra admin it would require and speculation about the possible charge (15p some say). What struck me was that the focus from the retail rep was not the alternatives that such a tax would probably offer such as bags for life, cardboard boxes etc, but that he was working on the assumption that everyone would be robbed blind by having no other alternative than to buy a bag or two every time they visit a shop. Thankfully there was some counter balance provided by one or two callers who praised their own bags for life, and I’m pleased to say that there are more than a few customers that already do so in my work.

However (and these are just observations rather than official study I hasten to add), I’ve noticed some definite trends when it comes to plastic bag usage. 

• Women are far more likely to bring their own bag for shopping than men. Either using their hand bag for odd items or having a shopping bag of their own. I’d say roughly about ten times more women do this than men. Though women are more likely to ask for things like detergent to be double bagged or bagged separately to the rest of their shopping.
• Men are more likely to ask for a bag, with men aged between 35-65 almost twice as likely than any other customer demographic, to ask for a bag for small, easily carried items such as a can of coke, newspapers and packets of crisps.
• Younger customers, under the age of 35, are less likely to take a smaller plastic bag for loose fruit and veg.
• By far the most likely to refuse a bag, and even pre-emptively state that they do not need a bag, are school children, aged from 10-18. They’ll either stuff their purchases into already bulging school bags or carry it with them.
• Bag usage for easily carried items increases if it is raining, even if these items are unlikely to be damaged in the rain.
• People on the whole are far more likely to consider their shopping, and ultimately refuse a bag, if you ask ‘Do you need a bag?’ rather than ‘Would you like a bag?’. 

So what have I gathered from this far from scientific study? Well first up, kudos to the kids, clearly environmental education in schools is making an impact. Secondly, there needs to be a drive to increase the number of men using their own shopping bags, particularly in the older age groups. Perhaps the image of a shopping bag is still that of a somewhat effeminate accessory (admittedly, the vast majority of designs are tailored towards traditional female patterns and colours), or perhaps women are still the principal shoppers in most families and as a result are better prepared? As to why men between 35-65 are more to likely ask for a bag for easily carried items, well that one stumps me and I'm resisting the urge to brand then lazy feckers. As this tends to happen more in an older age group, it might have something to do with a tradition of expecting a bag - 'shops have always provided them, so why shouldn't I take one?' and the associated resistance to change that comes with that attitude.

Probably what I've gathered most from my retail experience though, is that for reduction to be the key factor in how NI deals with the plastic bag levy (something that seems to be largely ignored in the endless debates about revenue and admin costs), there needs to be an effort to make people openly question whether they need or want a bag, and this has to be directed at the people who have enjoyed the luxury of an endless supply of plastic bags for the majority of their lives.

The observations noted cover the customer base in our shop; people who both walk and drive to the shop, all ages and from outward appearance appear to have no physical disability that would mean that they can't carry single or light items. 

Image: winnond / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

What the frack?

First up, apologies if you have arrived at this article via Google expecting a montage of Battlestar Galactica's favourite expletive. This is actually about the environmental process of Hydraulic Fracturing, that has become a matter of local interest in recent months following the awarding of licences in Central Larne, Lough Neagh Basin, Lough Allen Basin, Rathlin Basin and Rathlin Island. Now I'll be the first to admit that my scientific knowledge in this area is pretty thin on the ground. It's a fairly new process in this part of the world, though fracking has been used for several decades in other parts if the world including the US and it's never been anything I've had to brush up on in the past. So today I thought I'd do a very simple guide to fracking, with a couple of videos approaching the process from different points of view. Hopefully this will get the basics down and lay the ground work for any future debate.

So, what is fracking?
The wiki definition states: "hydraulic fracturing, often called Fracking, Fracing[a] or hydrofracking, is the process of initiating and subsequently propagating a fracture in a rock layer, by means of a pressurized fluid, in order to release petroleum, natural gas, coal seam gas, or other substances for extraction"

Simply put this is the process of breaking up rocks using water and other chemicals, creating more opportunities to release fossil fuels such as gas and oil from between the fractures created.

Why the fuss?
I guess this depends on what your values are. On the one hand this process does increase the amount of fossil fuels you can extract, which in turn increases availability and some would argue reduce cost. In the US this process is credited as being a key process in the increased use of natural gas, and as a means of weaning the nation off (foreign) oil. However, it can also be seen as a means of further investing in a dependence on fossil fuels, when money could be spent on renewables.

There have also been some concerns as to the safety of fracking on the surrounding natural environment and contamination of water supply, as demonstrated on this report from the BBC.




Whether these problems are an inevitable consequence of fracking or a result of irresponsible drilling companies is still being debated (see below), but either way it raises further questions as to how the process is monitored and regulated, and due high levels of concern, Fracking has already been banned or suspended in several countries.

When it comes to Northern Ireland, I suppose my biggest concern aside from those mentioned is the amount of water that is required to carry out industrial scale fracking. From www.hydraulicfracturing.com;

'Drilling a typical Chesapeake deep shale gas and oil well requires between 65,000 and 600,000 gallons of water. Water is also used in fracking where a mixture of water and sand is injected into the deep shale at a high pressure to create small cracks in the rock allowing gas and oil to freely flow to the surface. Fracking a typical Chesapeake horizontal deep shale gas or oil well requires an average of 4.5 million gallons per well.'


This is stated as a one time spend, but figures and fracking amounts vary from source to source (and will depend on the scale of individual projects I'm sure), so I'll try not to cling on to one particular figure. Regardless, I'd love to have more clarity on any project that relies heavily on, or is known to affect our water. It is less than a year ago that NI Water was failing to meet demand as a result of bad weather, and significant chunks of our recent election were dedicated to the prospect of water charges and the urgent work that needs doing to our ageing treatment and delivery systems, not to mention the preservation of wetland and marine areas. Awarding licences for a process that will increase pressure on these systems and possible have an adverse affect on supply, just seems a little flawed to me.


But like I stated earlier, this is a relatively new area for me, so if you have any more expertise to add, please do so in the comments section, and check out the following links to learn more.


http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
http://www.what-the-frack.org/
http://www.frackcheckwv.net

Huffington Post UK Launched

Following the launch of Huffington Post Canada, Huffington Post UK launched earlier this week, the second biggest expansion outside the US for this unashamedly liberal online media site. From Arianna Huffington herself, came a gushing statement of affection for the UK, writing in her inaugural UK blog post:

"I am delighted to be in London today for the first Huffington Post launch outside of North America. Britain has always held a very special place in my heart. I started (and finished) college here. I started (and finished) my first serious love affair here.."


If you don't know Huffington yet, the site is a mix of politics, media, business, entertainment, lifestyle, green and world news and several blogs. Huffington UK promises much of the same, albeit with a domestic angle. 

For many this will be a welcome addition to UK's news market, especially in light of recent events surrounding the unethical methods employed by News of the World 'journalists' and the implications for News International on the whole, that have been such a hot topic this week. While for others, it has been met with a rather more mixed reception, with the Guardian criticising the apparent lack of invention and poor aesthetic appeal, though one can perhaps speculate that elements of rivalry and competition have had much to play in that assessment.

I'll be waiting to see how the UK version works out, but as it stands, welcome a little bit more liberal competition to UK web. In a week where we are lambasting the awful techniques employed by newspapers to feed an appetite for scandal, it is perhaps worth remembering that it is also readership and response that shapes the face of UK journalism, not just the results of official inquiries and bouts of public outrage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/environment/

Looking for the New Environmentalism?

Mark Lynas argues that the green movement is dying and that it's time for a new kind of environmentalism. But perhaps he should stop revelling in opposition and catch himself on to the fact that this new movement is already under way...

Two articles in the Guardian this past week from former green poster boys Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, have apparently ruffled a few feathers due to their critical approach to the environmentalist movement. The continuing 'I was wrong' approach of Monbiot on the subject of nuclear power and yet another 'Green's have lost their way' j'accuse from Lynas via the pen of Susanna Rustin, strive to highlight perceived problems regarding the environmentalist lobby's attitude to particular issues, and have resulted in a wealth of comments from the congratulatory, to the eco-reactionary, and everything in between. 

Personally, I welcome these pieces as means of debate and growth. But when it comes to Lynas I can't help but think that he secretly wouldn't want my or anyone's approval if it meant facing up to the fact that his much publicized revolutionary take on the movement, isn't that revolutionary at all. 

Has the Green Movement Lost its Way? Anti-nuclear, anti-capitalist, anti-flying: the green movement may have alienated more people than it has won over, and there are now calls for a new kind of environmentalism

Guardian, 2nd July 2011

            

My biggest issue with this Rustin/Lynas article, aside from it being a shameless book plugging rehash of so many other Lynas pieces, is that Lynas appears to have appointed himself a lone Archimedes; the self proclaimed one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, the bastion of insight and foresight among us whimpering and confused greenies, whose blindness to the science of nuclear power and anti capitalist tendencies are simply keeping us in the dark. 

What he fails to mention or understand (not sure if it is an omission of intent or ignorance) is that for so many of us, the realisation that we couldn't live in the past and expect a Luddite-esque attitude to the future is something that we came to terms with a long time ago, while for others, it was wasn't even a case of 'realisation', with reasons for being or becoming green never really steeped in the same sort of fight the power (or in his case, fight the sweetcorn and sugarbeet crops) direct action that characterized the 1990s for Lynas. Instead, for us there already exists a new kind of environmentalism, one that if Lynas wasn't too pre-occupied with discovering, he would, well...discover.

The new green movement may not be as keen as Lynas to cast off it's traditionalist/purist/radical (call them what you will) roots, but instead views them as something to retain and continue to build upon, practising the very organic nature of progress that we preach. Still anti-capitalists? Well that was a far too simple an accusation to begin with. Instead how about capitalist critical with a strong sense of social justice and fairness to boot -  willing to work with industry rather than against it, and looking to improve rather than overthrow. And anti nuclear? Again, sweepingly general and ignores an openness to debate that you do find in the green movement. The anti nuclear lobby is of course is still in the majority, but that's not to say we don't want to be convinced. Only recently George Monbiot decided that he had been, and has since proceeded to write about his conversion with vigour, with the below article being a prime example:

The nuclear industry stinks. But that is not a reason to ditch nuclear power. The debate is skewed by distrust of big corporate interests. Under proper scrutiny, new plants can give safer, cleaner energy.

Guardian, 4th July 2011

Now I won't be reaching for the stones and looking to condemn Monbiot for these views. I actually enjoy his articles. They are for the most part well written, well researched and presented, with a credible amount of frankness and even though I have certain issues with the particulars, I respect the views therein. However on one point I will call him out. Like Lynas, I think think he has a tendency to overstate the opposition to his views, and I'd be quick to advise any existing or would-be greens that resistance is not as fiery his Twitter feed would like you to think is the case. Yes, the practical nuclear argument might not win over the majority at the moment, but nor are those who present it hounded for their views, and this is perhaps where Monbiot the self promoter takes over:

"Calling all opponents of nuclear power: sharpen yr pitchforks for tmrrow's live online Guardian debate with me at 10am BST."

C'mon now George, I know you're plugging your latest gig, and I hope that your tongue is firmly in your cheek, but seriously pitch forks? That wouldn't be you trying to play the victim in an attempt to inspire a defiant underdog persona would it? Been watching a little bit too much Glenn Beck me thinks.

"Fascinating to see how few opponents of nuclear power are making specific rebuttals in comment thread"

There are plenty. But what you are failing to grasp/choosing to ignore is that with any debate regarding nuclear, the rebuttals will seldom be specific. People are more likely to respond with more questions and do so out of a concern for risk. Risk being the operative word. Risk perception, risk assessment, these will always dominate any discussion about nuclear power, and the very body of your article implies risk involved with poorly regulated nuclear companies and governing bodies. 

While I've no doubt both writers have experienced the head banging frustration of verbal conflict with more extremest factions of the movement, I think what they are ignoring is that across the board the revolution has already happened, the treehuggers they so readily fingered as holding us all back, have in fact, already moved on. And even those who haven't, needn't be seen as dragging the movement back, just there to lend a certain amount of perspective.

It may well suit Lynas and his publishers (and to a certain extent Monbiot's) agenda to present the idea of a failing and progress resistant green movement, but for many of us working from within, the move forward or die attitude has long since been taken on board. Preaching to the choir is one way of looking at this approach... failing to notice that the choir have gone on ahead, is perhaps more fitting.

Celebrating the Father Role

It's Father's Day this Sunday and as a result I thought I'd throw some light on Man Matters, a Northern Ireland partnership project run by the Workers’ Educational Association, Home-Start NI, The Men’s Health Forum in Ireland, Ballynafeigh Community Development Association and Parents Advice Centre. 

Established in 2009, the group works on providing advice and support for individuals and men's groups on issues of health, family and community.Yesterday I was fortunate enough to be in attendance at their Stormont event entitled 'Celebrating the Father Role' an insightful collection of talks that addressed the personal, psychological and cultural impact of the role of fathers and father figures in the lives of children and their impact on the community as a whole. Without sounding too much like a patronising douche bag, it was really nice to see so many fathers present and itching to get up and talk about the most important people in their lives.

The event also saw the launch of the Staying Connected Programme from Parent's Advice Centre, designed to encourage non resident father's to maintain important contact with sons. This comes about in the midst of June's Focus on Fathers drive from the Parents Advice Helpline, who state:

"Fathers have a crucial influence on their child’s development. Research shows that strong relationships between fathers and children are associated with higher levels of happiness and excellent health and when fathers are positively involved with their children before the age of 11, the children are more likely to escape a criminal record by the age of 21."

Means and methods of celebrating Father's Day were discussed, and from an eco friendly angle, I have to admit that nothing says I love you dad, I love the planet and we're pretty skint, like a home made recycled card. So hoke out the PVA glue, dried pasta, old newspaper and fabric, and sacrifice a clean house for a few hours to ensure that the dad in your or your child's life, gets a piece of emotional tat.

http://www.manmatters.org/

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

New Environment Minister is where it's Attwood

So Alex Attwood has been appointed Enfiranment Manystur at Starmount, bringing sharply drest Trandy Palitics to the green mofement...  

The SDLP took the environment ministry earlier this month, with former Social Development Minister Alex Attwood taking on the eco ticket on the hill. Many people will view this as a natural transition, a testament to the growing consensus that the natural and social environments are intrinsicly linked, while others will see this is a far safer option than more contentious, money spending ministries, such as the dreaded Health Department (picked by DUP on the ninth elective). From a greenie perspective, I think it's safe to say that the job could have, and has been, in worse hands (cough, Sammy, cough cough) and it bodes well that like most parties the SDLP made a point of expressing just how green their portfolio was in the run up to the election.  But based on past form and current promises, what can we expect from Attwood and the SDLP over the next four years?

In the role of Social Development Minister Mr Attwood was very much on the forefront of the fuel poverty debate in Northern Ireland, an issue with one foot in the social and one in the environment. Critism was levelled against him when he admitted that he wouldn't commit to Warm Zone implementation in NI and did not think it was possible to eradicate fuel poverty here entirely. However at the launch of the fuel poverty coalition in April where Mr Attwood sat with myself and Anna Lo (new Environment Committee Chair) he did focus on the deregulation of oil prices in NI to make energy prices more affordable, great for the consumer, but an attitude that did lead to accusations of short termism and to the detriment of discussing issues relating to over dependence on oil. But that was of course in the vein of his role in social development, we may well see some changes in attitude and more scope in his environment role.

And what of the SDLP policy on environment? 

The SDLP is absolutely committed to this sustainability and job creation plan. Not only will it help manage climate change, the Green New Deal has the ability to help lift vulnerable people out of fuel poverty, and crucially provide significant jobs within the next three years. Manifesto 2011

In this year's manifesto the party voiced commitment to the Green New Deal, to a sum of £75 million, though, correct me if I'm wrong, I can't see any details in the manifesto of where this money is coming from. What they do believe is that the implementation will result in three times the revenue in private industry and would be part of ongoing attempts to tackle fuel poverty. However much of the environment role with regards to fuel poverty is defined by the relationship between the MOE and the Housing Minister, who this time around will be Nelson McCausland. Whether Mr Attwood and Mr McCausland will be able to work together in the way the SDLP had envisioned remains to to be seen, it may be the case that Alex will have to ensure the playing of gospel music, creationist displays and pro Israeli sentiment in all of their coffee mornings to keep the DUP's outspoken minister on side.

The final aspect of SDLP environment approach can perhaps be best summed up by Conal McDevitt in his O'Connal Street blog, that being the hope that the SDLP Minister will be able to introduce Climate and Marine Acts, coupled with the understanding that the environment knows no border. Much can and should be do on an all island basis to deepen cooperation.

So we should, judging by these comments, be expecting more cross boarder co-operation on environmental and bio diversity issues, something hoped for by many campaigners. Though it would of course be the long term hope (and one stressed by audience and participants at the Environmental Link hustings in April) that environmental issues, particularly those relating to bio diversity and climate change take on not just an all Ireland or even UK/ROI, but an all European and world wide scope. For while talking environmental issues on a localised basis might go down well at election time, some of the most pressing environmental issues require global thinking and international cooperation. Is Mr Attwood prepared to branch out and make the Northern Irish voice heard, beyond Stormont? Not easy given the limits of a legislative assembly, but in his role as Social Development minister he at least showed elements of thinking outside the little white box on the hill. Lets just hope he brings that attitude to the green room.


You can follow Alex Attwood on BBC Democracy Live 
Alternatively, you can catch up with all the trandy palitics and all the going on down at club SDLP by following parody Twitter @AlexAttwood (Nat). I recommend that you do.
http://oconallstreet.com/

Help us help you - organ and blood donation legislation.

An article in last week's Belfast Telegraph reported that less than 5000 people from NI have joined the NHS Donor Register since the beginning of this year, a paltry number when placed in context of the reduced number of donors from traditional groups such as road traffic victims and brain haemorrhage patients, who thanks to road safety and medical improvements are more likely to survive their ordeals.

So what influences the decision not to sign up to the register? For some there are personal reasons regarding post mortem organ ownership, however, for others it is the same old story (and one we're probably all guilty of in some aspects of our lives), we simply haven't gotten around to it / never thought about it / can't be bothered [delete as appropriate]. There will also be a fair few people who carry a card, but haven't signed up to the register and haven't expressed their wishes clearly to their family.

I've also heard a few people dismissively state that their organs wouldn't be worth anything due to the fact that they are smokers or drinkers. What few people realise is that in the case of a plentiful register, less than perfect organs still have their use. They can be used for research, or in some cases given to people who's transplants are not life saving but might allow them to undergo treatment for other illnesses. Under normal circumstances they would be excluded from transplant programs or be repeatedly overlooked.

So what of the op out system of donation? Will the future of a successful organ donation society rely on this or at least a comprehensive debate into it? When a person comes of age, should they be automatically added to the register, whereby it is up to them to remove themselves from it if they feel the need? The choice is still there afterall, no one is forcing anyone to donate, and you should be helped in any way possible by your local health adviser (GP, School Nurse etc) to make an educated and informed decision, along with the option to donate to medical research if you so wish.

The British Medical Association (BMA), many transplant surgeons, and some patients' groups and politicians are keen to see Britain adopt a system of "presumed consent", where it is assumed that an individual wishes to be a donor unless he or she has "opted out" by registering their objection to donation after their death. http://www.uktransplant.org.uk

So it appears the idea has some level of support, but what stands in the way? When opt out has been on the agenda before there have been concerns regarding personal choice, but also the practicalities. For example, seeking the consent of family members could reveal some important family medical history, perhaps not known to the donor, and for this reason many countries that have a 'presumed consent' policy still try to contact families before taking organs.

But it seems that at the moment UK legislation is putting the responsibility to sign up on the would be donor. To me this seems to be making the process of doing a good thing like donation that little bit harder. And that is before we even get to the quite frankly ridiculous limitations currently being imposed on gay men who wish to donate blood.

As if rubbing salt in the wounds of those want to help and adhere to the 'no excuses' advertising jargon, limitations on men with same sex partners were addressed recently, with the ban on giving blood apparently 'lifted'. Read the small print however and you'll find that there is a 10 year no sex clause (read Neue Politik and Stephen's Liberal Blog for responses to this insulting compromise).

Health care is on the election agenda this week in Northern Ireland. I've just outlined two examples that can easily be addressed to your local candidate if this is something that is important to you (it was certainly important to one dialysis patient I spoke to in the Village when canvassing this weekend). The time is here to tell our legislators, help us help.

http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/default.jsp
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/allow-gay-people-to-be-blood-donors-uk/

Demand for wind power on the rise

As the debtae about Nuclear Power continues, guest blogger Kristina Zelisko working with Redstone College (which offers a wind turbine training program), writes about the rise of a mighty wind...

As we all sit back and watch in horror as tragic events continue to unfold in Japan, quiet conversations are taking place all over the world about the future of nuclear power. The situation in Japan, the most earthquake prepared nation in the world, reminds us that when things go wrong in the world of nuclear power, they don’t just go a little wrong.

Alternate energies such as solar or wind turbine have been steadily gaining positive momentum through the years and a disaster such as a nuclear meltdown within a densely populated area only serves to put a spotlight on why. If one had to find a silver lining in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami, it would be the heightened interest and new sense of urgency to implement these alternative methods of generating our power.

Businesses of all sizes that deal with alternative energy sources are suddenly becoming very popular around the world and this is excellent news for anyone currently taking training such as a wind energy technology program, solar energy or any of the other many green energies. As popularity increases, jobs and new careers are beginning to open up as are educational options. 

Reputable universities and colleges across the country are adding entire curriculum and degree programs based on wind energy training, water based technology, solar energy and many other natural methods for creating or capturing the energy that we need. Students that are getting on board early will find themselves in the fortunate position of near endless career opportunities. The emerging industries will very quickly need well trained professionals to service the growing demand.

Like any profession or business that experiences global demand, new education and programs like wind turbine training will begin to supply the industry with the new people that it will require to meet that demand.

Whether a tragedy like in Japan or an ever dwindling supply of the fuel and energy that we are currently using, the market is being forced to consider alternatives. Those alternatives mean a wealth of opportunity for us all, and also for the planet.

Kristina Zelisko // Web Promoter // W 1-888-818-4917 // kristina@buzzpromote.net // www.buzzpromote.net

Sleazy come, sleazy go.

The real sleaze behind Iris Robinson's downfall is not the tabloid titillation, but the non disclosure of business and personal interest. But can we really expect transparency from a politician whose party opposes the notion at every turn?

Lost among the endless column inches dedicated to the exposure of Iris Robinson's affair with Kirk McCambley was the initial fact that Mrs Robinson helped raise some £50,000 in investment funds on McCambley's behalf which she did not declare to either Westminster or Stormont, and failed to disclose her personal interest when Castlereagh Council awarded him a cafe lease. It's perhaps not that surprising really, Mrs Robinson outspoken comments on morality issues, in particular her opinions on homosexuality meant that her extra martial activities were seized upon. But following the Public Prosecution Services decision last week not to bring charges against her, one would be forgiven for thinking that the real political issue has been swept aside amidst the personal life gossip and speculation.

The PPS does not go into detail as to why charges are not being brought and there is still an Assembly Standards investigation outstanding, but whatever the legal outcome there remains the issue of a serious breach of trust between Mrs Robinson and the constituents of Castlereagh who expect their council representatives to declare invested interests in the awarding of licences, tenders and leases. At the time the Council itself saw criticism levelled at it for its slow and limited online publication of council minutes - had anyone known of the existing relationship between Robinson and McCombley, could they have raised objections to the award if details of council meetings been more readily available? For a couple of weeks, clarity and scrutiny in local authority dealings became topic de jour, unfortunately this was mostly in the independent and freelance writing sphere, from online bloggers and in political forums, as much more attention was paid by newspapers and mainstream media to the 'sex scandal' aspect.

But is the now resigned Mrs Robinson's behaviour merely a symptom of a culture of non disclosure that has infected certain areas of NI politics? Though no longer a member of the DUP, while in office Iris Robinson was arguably the poster girl for the party; a long standing councillor before becoming MLA and MP, married to the First Minister and mother of party member. The criticism she and her husband faced during the expenses scandal admittedly damaged this reputation somewhat and later her non disclosure of funds and interest would most certainly have been condemned, but her affair made a far more convenient objection, deflecting from the obvious question of how do you protest against one woman's failure to volunteer personal interest, if she represents a party that refuses to publish it's own party donations, and therein, its own vested interests.

In January this year the DUP, along with the SDLP and UUP, openly moved to preserve for a further two years, the current legislation that conceals the public identity of party donors and lenders. Transparency it seems is not something that should be led by example. While we cannot cast any aspersions as to donors and subsequent decision making by party representatives, we cannot have open, clean politics until donations are declared. There is even a substantial argument that you cannot have impartiality until business donations are taken out of the equation all together. In the meantime though, I'd just be happy to see the books opened and let the public decide whether the decision making process for tenders is as fair and honest as it should be. One woman's marriage indiscretions simply won't provide a long term smokescreen on this issue...

Wacko Nuts and Cyclepaths

Just days after writing about some inspirational women in environmental politics, I read about the current law case being brought against the city of New York by a group of residents opposed to a bicycle lane in a wealthy area of Brooklyn. The case raises objections to the creation of a segregated two way cycle lane in the area in 2010, and claims that the city mislead residents about the benefits of the lane and safety statistics, while working with bicycle activists to silence local opposition. That the path reduces resident parking, restricts views of the park and could adversely affect property prices I imagine is on people's minds, if not their court documents. 


But what struck me about the subsequent reporting was not the environmental issue, or even the social aspect (the practice of taking road space from motorists to give to cyclists and pedestrians has been labelled a 'Robin Hood' practice), no, what is noticeable is the particular focus on Janette Sadik Khan, NYC Transport Commissioner, and the women responsible for the recent cycling initiatives in New York that have previously been lauded for improving cyclist and pedestrian safety, time efficiency and adding to the general worker mobility of money areas such as Wall Street. 


As others have highlighted, the action against the city has started to take a very personal tone. While the case in question calls for the removal of a single cycle lane, reporters and opposition groups have been quick to jump on the idea that this is a long over due backlash against Khan. Reporting, in particular from the New York Times, has focussed on her personality and management style, speculating about her 'brusque, I-know-best style and a reluctance to compromise' as well her aggressive attitude. One wonders if these aspects of character would have been so freely commented upon if Khan had been a man, and even then, would that have been seen as entirely negative. And that's before we even get to the undignified comments of gossip columnist Cindy Adams which refer to Khan as a 'wacko nutso'.


But this is hardly the first time that a women in high public office has seen objections about her politics turn personal, and in some cases overtly sexist in tone. Sarah Palin faced high levels of criticism during the 2008 election, much of it turned personal (yeah, that's politics for you, regardless of gender, I'm not that naive), but some of it turned sexist and sexual. Huffington Post contributor and screen writer Michael Steitzman in his insightful 'Sarah Palin Naked' article stated 'She's really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution.' C'mon people, Palin's politics alone should be enough to ridicule her, there's no need for that, or the photoshopped bikini pictures, or the Palin porno for that matter.


At the moment Khan's critics have focussed on attitude rather than sexuality, yet the fact that the argument has shifted away from the issue and onto the public servant either speaks volumes for the weight of the original argument or reveals more about the growing resentment towards Khan. Is it personal? It is certainly starting to look that way. Is it gender related? Perhaps not across the board, but some inherent attitudes seem incapable of distinguishing between the woman and the job she holds.



Image: Rawich / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

International Women's Day: Women in the Business

In honour of International Women's Day, today's post focusses on women in environmental politics and social campaigning. Of course they're working hard every day, but it doesn't hurt to take a few moments today to give them some much deserved kudos.


When I was studying politics some years ago I came across a worrying statistic that showed that women in Ireland were proportionally less represented in elected politicians than The Sudan. Yep, you read that right, The Sudan. That was some years ago and from what I can remember represented only the ROI, but it was still a shocking figure. Have things improved much? Last months ROI elections saw 24 women elected to the Dail, two more than 2007, but that is out of a possible 166 seats. Ireland still trail behind The Sudan, Kazakhstan and Iraq in world league tables. Here in N.Ireland representation isn't much better, with 18 female MLAs elected to Stormont in 2007, a paltry 16% of the total seats.

Of course there are some great female politicians and candidates, victories in 2010 Westminster elections for the likes of the Alliance Party's Naomi Long, against First Minister Peter Robinson no less, and Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew in the tightly contested Fermanagh seat, prove that female politicians can do the business come voting time, and it may be simply a case of ensuring that more women are encouraged to stand. In this year's Local Assembly Election's I'm extra pleased that the environmental option in South Belfast lies with the Green Party's Clare Bailey (pictured). I'll set my impartiality aside for a moment and state that I've been canvassing with Clare in recent months and I can safely say that my vote has never been in better hands.


Of course a great deal of political involvement starts at school or university, and I'm also please to say that the QUB Feminist Society is now up and running as an active society for students in Belfast. Recognition should go to co-chairs Ashleigh Simpson and Judith McGimpsey for making such head way in recent months.


Finally I'd just like to highlight three inspirational women who have influenced me in their politics, dedication and commitment to eco and female issues:

Caroline Lucas: The first English Green Party MP on her election last May, Caroline Lucas's leadership of the party over the past three years, and eleven year stint in the European Parliament, have seen the profile and image of eco concious politics in the UK raised significantly. She's also done more than her fair share for women, campaigning on issues of domestic violence, breast cancer, sexual health and maternal care.

http://www.carolinelucas.com/cl.html

Petra Kelly: Instrumental in the creation and development of  Die Grünen, her tragic murder in 1992 may have meant that she never fulfilled her full potential, but what she did manage in her life was extraordinary and she is truly as inspiration and role model to environmentalists across the globe, male and female alike. 

Harriet Lamb: As Executive Director of the UK Fairtrade Foundation, I guess Ms Lamb is having a busy time of at at the minute as we're right in the middle of Fairtrade Fortnight (check out Fairtrade Pancake recipe of Greensheen Kitchen). She is also the author of Fighting the Banana Wars and Other Fairtrade Battles, which is available via Amazon.

We and They...

 ... or how Cameron's empty rhetoric demonstrates just why choice of language and substance behind it, is something we must judge and hold our politicians accountable by. 


Yes everyone's least favourite Moomin David Cameron made a speech this weekend at the 47th annual Munich Security Conference, that has sparked quite an uproar. The issues, about the threat of terrorism and extremist behaviour, are as you can imagine, quite sensitive topics and were handled with all the grace and gentility of a hand gliding hippo. And just for good measure, the timing turned out to be such a magnificent balls up that it could have been a scene right out of The Thick of It, coming just hours before the EDL marched on Luton in an anti Islamic Extremist demonstration.

The speech was of course picked apart by the press and Cameron critics to reveal it's weaker, more contentious aspects. Do not image that the entirety actually involved Oswald Mosley style black shirting, with fatwa baiting, jihad taunting slurs, arms flapping, foaming at the mouth and much gnashing of teeth. It did not. Yet from what I've just written, I bet you were picturing what such a scenario would be like, even just for a second. You see that's the power of language, it inspires and creates, and can be used to great effect, both in the positive and the negative. So when Mr Cameron, the leader of the coalition, stands in front of the world and spouts, we pay attention to the language, terminologies and analogies he employs, both as a means of revealing his own agenda, but also to see what message he is sending to the rest of the world as a representative of this country.

And it really doesn't read well. I'm afraid to say that this man, who couldn't even get a country united enough against one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in recent years, to vote him and his party into unshared government, is now lecturing on the need for a national unity in the face of 'failed multiculturalism'. And how does he go about this? A small excerpt;

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

In one sentence Mr Cameron has made harmful and counterproductive distinctions between segregated communities or 'they' as he so tactfully puts it, and 'we', what he later goes on to describe as the mainstream, and 'our values'. The language is alienating to say the least, talking as if the dreaded 'they' will not hear such utterances and assuming the like-mindedness of his audience.

But it goes so much deeper than this ham fisted language, which given it's tone was not surprisingly taken up that day by many EDL marchers as a sign of unity. There are startling failures in the speech in terms of content. At one point he speaks of the 'passive tolerance' of recent years. I can only assume he means the passive tolerance of New Labour, that saw some of the most regressive attacks on civil rights and freedoms in modern times all in the name of fighting extremism, and legislations which were opposed at the time by members of this coalition no less, on the grounds of civil liberties violations. Are we now to understand that these were too soft?

Then there's the sweeping assumptions that segregation leads to extremism and that extremism and forced marriage are intrinsically linked - to me Cameron's isolated and misplaced sentence on the issue of forced marriage in the midst of a speech on security, ignores the complexities of the issue and seems more like moral point scoring. Add to that the notion that there is such a thing as 'British values', that the mainstream is identifiable and attainable, all the while maintaining that there are problems with state sponsored multiculturalism and powerful segregation groups, but without going into any real specifics, and you have a speech that is holier than a nun at Easter.

Yet more importantly Cameron lacks real resolution; ensuring language attainment and National Citizen Service may sound nice, but this presumes that extremism is solely the responsibility of so called segregated community and reeks of assimilation rather than integration. In amongst the misrepresenting, the 'us and them' suggestiveness, are there solid plans to tackle poverty rates or immigration geography trends that one would assume lead to segregation (if of course this is even what causes extremism)? Not really, not unless you consider getting everyone in the country to hold hands at the proms to the chorus of Rule Britannia a plan, though even that might also be a slight issue Mr Cameron - as before you start on your venture into the Islamic community, you may well be wise to venture to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, hell, even half the north of England, where I think you'll find very different versions of national identity and 'our' values.

The Watermelon Slur: Why it says more about the accuser than the accused

If you haven't heard the term already, a Watermelon in this context, is someone who is apparently 'Green on the outside, Socialist (and therefore red) on the inside'. It's a lazy and ineffective attack for a number of reasons. Firstly, those who throw the term about probably think they are being oh so clever, when it is in fact nothing more than a bastardization of another tasteless term, the 'Coconut', used to question the essential 'blackness' of some people (in pop culture terms, the likes of Tom from The Boondocks and Carlton Banks from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air were often accused of a 'black on the outside, white on the inside' characteristics).

Secondly, while the 'Coconut'  is rightly offensive, its lame cousin the Watermelon is rather more of a venomless snake, given that for most Greens the concept is neither new, surprising or by any means an insult. The English Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, when questioned about her Watermelon credentials on last weeks BBC Politics Show, simply replied 'well I don't have a problem with that' and I doubt many others would argue.

Being Green is about so much more than treehugging, it's about concern for our social environment too. This does not make us afraid of progress or change, but it does make us concerned that when this change comes about that it not done at the cost of the vulnerable. Want to cut our over reliance on the public sector Mr Wilson and Cameron? Go ahead, I'm sure we'd all welcome alternatives, but who exactly will pick up the slack? Private industry? What private industry? Only an idiot cuts the rope before the safety net has arrived. As a member of the Green Party I support the Green New Deal and I feel that investment in this area is one of the only workable alternative economic solutions. Once in place, then, and only then, can we be confident that our workforce has alternatives. Is this socialist? Perhaps, and I don't have a problem with that.

Finally, the idea that one should be embarrassed, ashamed or in any way hide one's socialist or leftist tendencies, reveals far more about the accuser them than it does us. Clearly, like the Tea Party protesters in the US, these people still live in their own bubble where they see a social outlook and concern akin to to the loopy left, communism or erm, Nazism. This is certainly not the case. If you can't admit to any social concern, and that is concern for the weakest and poorest people in your country and the world over, then you have no business in politics... well you do, just join the Condems, DUP or the Republican Party.

I was out protesting on Saturday in Belfast against the EMA cuts and compared to previous efforts the turn out wasn't great, especially given that the university fees issue in Northern Ireland is still very much up for debate. I imagine that in part this was due to the mass student exodus that takes place at weekends in Belfast, but also the unfortunate reputation that these protests have gained following violence in England. However, another protester from People Before Profit, summarized that in the protest movement is in danger of forever being labelled as a socialist niche and that success will only come when the notion that people can change their society for the better by speaking out against the unwise decisions of their officials, appeals to a broader range of people. As a socialist himself, he understood the need for support from more middle/central political groups, who have voiced disapproval of current government actions, but refuse to get their hands dirty. I think there's a lot to be said for this, as it seems in the face of flying Watermelons, that some people are still very much afraid of reds under the beds.

Gulf Oil Spill Disaster

Today marks 44 days since Transocean's Deepwater Horizon Rig suffered an oil well blowout that resulted in the deaths of 11 workers, the sinking of the rig and a daily hemorrhaging of between 12,000–100,000 barrels of BP oil. Considered the worst environmental disaster to hit the US, as I type, the problem is still not contained, with pressure mounting daily on BP to halt the leak.

My heart goes out to the families of those who lost their lives and the people of the Gulf Coast who have suffered so much in recent years. While Greensheen Blogger is primarily a children and family blog, it would be a great disservice to those affected not to acknowledge this disaster, and as such I will be running a week long posting campaign focusing on the enormous environmental and social impacts of the spill, featuring special guest posts.

First up is Barbara O'Brien.  Journalist, writer of the Mahablog and About.com contributor, Barbara is also a representative of maacenter.org, a leading web resource for asbestos exposure and cancer information.

“Trust Us” Is Getting Old

When British Petroleum (BP) applied for a permit to build the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and begin drilling, it claimed to have the technology and know-how to handle any oil spill.

But in the face of an actual spill, BP is much less confident. “This scares everybody: the fact that we can’t make this well stop flowing, the fact that we haven’t succeeded so far,” BP CEO Doug Suttles said. “Many of the things we’re ­trying have been done on the surface before, but have never been tried at 5,000 ft.”

They’ve never been tried at 5,000 feet. Drilling for oil this deeply under the ocean is a relatively new enterprise for our species. Oil has been drilled offshore in shallow water for more than a century. But deepwater drilling is much more expensive than shallow-water drilling. For a long time drilling in deep water wasn’t tried, because it would have cost more to extract a barrel of oil than a barrel of oil was worth on world markets. It took the spikes in oil prices in recent years to make deepwater drilling profitable.

Politicians and oil executives assured us that offshore oil drilling was safe. Those tree huggers who worry about environmental disasters are nuts, they said. Yes, there have been oil rig disasters in the past, but (big wink) we know what we’re doing now. Trust us.

The laws of physics work differently nearly a mile underwater than they do on land, or shallow water, however. By now, it is obvious BP is still trying to invent a procedure that might stop the oil leak, maybe, if we’re lucky. No one appears to have been ready for the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Really, this “trust us” business is getting old. How many times have we been told to “trust” some new thing, and then when the dangers surface we find out the “trusted” ones hadn’t told us the whole truth?

In the mid-20^th century we humans went into overdrive digging asbestos out of the earth to use in countless structures and products. There is asbestos in navy ships, asbestos in our homes and schools, asbestos in old car parts, asbestos in landfills. And eventually, years after medical science had determined asbestos exposure causes terrible disease, industry executives and politicians reluctantly agreed to shut down asbestos production, or at least most of it. And now the cost of asbestos abatement and mesothelioma treatment is an ongoing problem for individuals, taxpayers, and businesses.

And do we want to talk about Vioxx? Tanning beds? And now there are questions being asked about Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in just about every plastic bottle you’ve ever touched. It may be dangerous, it may not. Opinions vary. Just note that the same political and business leaders who deny BPA could be dangerous are the same ones who like to yell “drill, baby, drill.”

Barbara O’ Brien

June 2, 2010
www.mahablog.com