Deflating is Dangerous

Dear Editor,
I am amazed that any responsible person should approve of letting down the tyres of privately owned vehicles as a form of ecological protest. The article, ‘Climate Activists Vindicated’ in GW 62, says “Owners [of 4 x 4 vehicles] woke up to flat but undamaged tyres.” How do you, or they, know they were undamaged? The weight of a heavy vehicle resting on flat tyres could have damaged them internally in a way which could lead to a blow-out later on, maybe when the vehicle is full of passengers and travelling at speed. This action doesn’t demonstrate acting towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood, does it?

The persons doing this foolish and ill-thought out action have no knowledge of the personal circumstances of the owners of the vehicles they targeted. Maybe they would like to buy a more ecologically acceptable vehicle but haven’t the money to replace their 4 x 4. I rely on an old automatic diesel van with a 2.5 litre engine because I am disabled, though not in a way that the ordinary person would notice - I just can’t walk very far. I hide my “disabled” badge when it stands outside my house because I hear that they get stolen. I use it once a month to take two or three people more disabled than myself out to a tea party. How do you think I would feel if I got up one Sunday morning and found some brainless zealot had let my tyres down because he disapproved of my completely legal large vehicle?

One difference between the Kingsnorth protesters and the tyre deflators is that the Kingsnorth people identified themselves and were prepared to put their liberty at risk for what they believed in. Anonymous vandalism is quite different and even if it were not dangerous it would be despicable. Our whole society and successive governments are responsible for our current dependence on motor transport and to attack individuals for their part in it is, I believe, counter-productive.
Yours truly,
John Parfitt
Bristol



That which must be Saved

Dear Editor,
Is it possible to please not use the phrase ‘Saving the Planet’ as in the feature by Michael Coffey in issue 62 of Green World.

While the article itself is very good, this particular phrase, and some other phrasing in the article, is not helpful. The planet Earth is not under threat. The Earth’s biosphere and biodiversity are. It only takes a brief look at the history of the Earth to realise it has withstood much worse than is happening now. What is happening now may well lead to Earth becoming much more like Mars - arid and lifeless - but the Earth itself will not be destroyed.

The phrase ‘Saving the Planet’ irritates me because I worry that writers do not understand the nature of the current human induced environmental damage, and don’t look back to what has happened before. And to me it smacks of lazy thinking.

Please use a more appropriate phrase in the future.
Good wishes,
Brian Heale



It’s not all about the Animals

Dear Editor,
Whilst I agree with the views expressed about animal rights in the feature "The Rights of Others" (GW62), I believe that the focus is far too narrow, and fails to mention the much wider issue of how our society needs to change the way we value and respect nature. Loss of biodiversity should be recognised as one of the great challenges of our time, up there with climate change and other high profile environmental issues. A global "great extinction" of other species is currently taking place, at about 1% of species per year. Scientists have warned of the problem, governments have recognised the problem, and the resulting legislation has started to address the problem. But the decline still continues, albeit at a slightly reduced rate.

By coincidence, another article in GW62, on water shortages and how it affects humanity, also points out that the planet has a right to water too, and that means the entire ecosystem, not just people. The need for a healthy ecosystem has recently been highlighted by the plight of bees and the disaster of "colony collapse", with a warning that bees could be extinct within a decade. Yet pollination of crops is vital for our food supplies.

Regardless of whether we promote animal rights or not, if we fail to give the rest of nature the right to exist (even apparently insignificant insects), then our own future existence is threatened well before climate change kicks in. Controversially, but quite logically, this means not just diminishing our own impact on the planet by reducing our own "footprint", but also by reducing the number of footprints.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Gilligan
Gateside



Playing Down Emissions

Dear Editor,
In replying to my earlier letter, Philip Hodgetts (Letters, GW 62) claims “3% of total [global] warming” as “the proportion caused by aircraft.” This claim shows a rather astonishing ignorance of the facts - astonishing given that Mr Hodgetts is (one presumes) a member or active supporter of the Green Party.

The facts are these: air travel contributes at present about 3% of carbon emissions to the global total. But the warming-impact of these emissions must be multiplied by between 2.5 and 4 times to account for the cocktail of other global-warming gases emitted by airplanes, and for the fact that emissions of carbon at high levels in the atmosphere have a much stronger warming effect than emissions lower in the atmosphere (plus also the fact that many air travel high-level emissions take place at night - the worst time, in terms of warming effects). These effects collectively are known as ‘radiative forcing’.

So: the percentage of global warming being caused by aircraft is somewhere between about 7 and 14%. A reasonable estimate would be: at minimum 10%. Over three times as much as Mr Hodgetts claims.

I call upon supporters and members of VIVA - of whom I am one - not to repeat ever again the misinformation that has been repeatedly circulated by Mr Hodgetts (and Mr Wardle, and Mr Scholes) in Green World. It simply is not at all acceptable for Greens to play down the threat posed to our common future by air travel.
Faithfully,
Cllr Rupert Read,
Norwich



Dear Editor,
I was interested to read Maurice George’s letter, from West Lancashire, bemoaning the fact there is no-one worth voting for in his area [‘Burn those Ballots’ - GW online letters page]. I know I am a fine one to talk, as I am fortunate to live in Norwich where there is a very lively Green Party presence, but is there any chance of a Green Party being formed in the West Lancashire locality where Maurice George lives? After all, even the strongest of political party groups had small beginnings.
Yours sincerely
Lynda Edwards
Norwich



Dear Editor
As the 'credit crunch' bites, the topic of the nature of our money supply and the cause of its problems is regaining the public attention that it had in the years following the Crash of 1929, and all the signs are that this one could turn out far worse.

This is a topic I have been trying to educate the Conference-goers of the Green Party on for many years, but found it difficult to communicate it to the wider membership. Now the Internet is buzzing with debate on it, and I have joined in with a 'videocast' of my own, which the viewers of the Miro website have been rating as 'most popular' overall, and on the 'business' category, continuously for some time!
May I ask your readers to view it? www.MoneyMyths.org.uk
Brian Leslie
Kent