We must see serious investment in AD technology.Anarobic Reactors could provide biogas fuel for local government and transport systems as they do on the continent,and help GB move away from the irratic oil prices which is what got western democracies into this recession in the first place.

Mechanical and biological treatment facilities can also provide non fossil based fuels for many sectors of industry including power generation.Reducing industries emmissions overall is more productive than building substitute power stations mascarading as waste incinerators.

We need a new clean air act without all the exemptions of the old one .
We need to change the name and the culture of the Environment Agency from a permitting and unaccountable body
to an environmental protection agency accountable at a regional level to the public they should serve rather than the ministers that they try to appease.

A. From Daisy Bickley:

“Dear Richard

Thank you for sending me this document. After a quick read I’d like to comment on Water, Biodiversity and Back Gardens:

1. There is no mention of the potential use of “grey” water in the section on conserving water supplies and limiting the use of expensive treated drinking water.

2. I work as a volunteer at the Bristol Regional Environmental Centre and am aware that across the country these Centres are unequally funded, manned and experienced. Yet all “major” planning applications require an Environmental Assessment and the developers first call is often their local Centre who collect the records for species in their area. Should we include support for enhancing the role of these Centres?

3. We had a very successful “Hands off our Back Gardens Campaign” locally, but MP Liam Fox (Tory) wrote to all the petitioners saying conservatives weren’t to blame.

Kind regards

Daisy Bickley”

B. From Arthur Cruickshank:

“Dear Richard,

I’ve read the document, and in general what is suggested seems good and sensible.

However, the one thing that has been hovering round the back of my mind is the post-mediaeval history of Greenland and Iceland, and much of mainland Europe into the bargain.

Greenland was called such for a very good reason - in the summer it was very green, and the ice front was very far up the valleys, so that farming and crops could be produced to a very much greater degree than recently. The Late Middle Ages Warm Spell, or something suchlike. It then got very much worse, from the 12th century onwards, and the glaciers advanced and the farms were covered in thick ice and snow (which was the apparent norm for all time…!). This also was the probable state of affairs in Europe, and in Scotland there is firm record of farming taking place very mjuch higher into the hills than has been the case for some 3-4 hundred years.

So you will appreciate that I am a slightly sceptical follower of the global warming story. It is the normal thing for climate to change regularly…both for the ‘better’ and for the worse.

However what you are proposing in that paper is not so much the steps to be taken to avoid the efects of warming, but just as importantly, and something which should have engaged our intelligence for some considersable time, we Must start a good standard of global housekeeping.

As a student at Edinburgh, we had an excellent lecturer who pointed out (in the mid-1950’s) that we could not go on fishing at the rate we were, even then.

Do all the things that have been suggested, but do them for the greater good of a well managed planet, and never mind climate change for its own sake.

I’ll debate this if you would really like!

Best wishes,

Arthur Cruickshank”

C. From Jamie Wood:

“Hi Richard,

With regard to the final section — Making the best of the natural environment — I was disappointed to discover a lack of explicit reference to the work done by voluntary groups, typically but not necessarily, under the banner of BTV (British Trust for Conservation volunteers).

I have spent many years working with such groups, in Reading, Oxford, London and Edinburgh, and they are huge resource. They provide a repository for skills that are being lost from mainstream farming, a valuable activity to promote healthy living and a source of community
work in a diverse group. They of course make a real difference to important nature sites, from remote SSSI’s to local parks, by providing cheap, accessible and, often not acknowledged, skilled labour.

As a general comment my experiences with these groups threw up two related issues that I feel that might benefit from acknowledgment, the first was the encroachment into everything of massive public liability insurance that was a huge financial burden, which twice threatened to
fold-up local groups when I was an active member.

The second is that the costs of these insurance are increasing the dependence of these groups on local council grants. This distorts the relationship with councils and all to often leads to them being used as cheap, litter picking, labour. A huge potential waste of skills and
enthusiasm.

From my experiences many people would be suprised at the volume and sophistication of projects carried out by such groups that currently constitute a significant proportion of our current collective response to issues 31 and 32.

With best wishes

Jamie”

I hope these responses are useful. I can provide email addresses if you would like to explore their comments further.

Every best wish for your work

Richard Balmer
Sec ALDES

There is no doubt that fisheries policy based on quotas has been a dismal failure. There are other issues that also affect the health of the oceans & thus the health of the planet. ‘No Take’ zones are demonstrably successful in restoring oceanic biodiversity. We presented substantial evidence in support of these statements.

Whilst the idea of the Government’s Marine Bill is welcome
the proposed protected new areas in the Bill, to be known as “marine conservation zones”, will not automatically have complete protection. Instead, the government says that “varying levels of protection will be given to individual sites, from restricting certain activities, to ‘Highly Protected Marine Reserves’ where no damaging activities are allowed”. The final say on which areas are selected and how much protection they receive will rest with ministers. This permits far too much potential for further procrastination and ineffective outcomes. The interpretation of the word ‘damaging’ for example could lead to much argument & delay.

The present wording of the Government’s Bill gives far too much opportunity for the relevant minister to exercise personal judgment (whim?). In the document that goes to Conference in Spring 2009 we would like to see much stronger comment about urgency etc. than the present draft displays.

Secretary, Fylde Constituency Liberal Democrats