Entries from May 2008
I recently enjoyed the Environment Agency report 50 Ways To Save The Planet, given away with the Guardian a few months back. It’s a refreshingly positive approach to climate-change pamphleteering, with the emphasis firmly on answers. It’s also a bafflingly varied smörgåsbord of solutions, ranging from the mundane - put a jumper on before you turn up the heating - to slightly mad hi-tech schemes like using giant space mirrors to reflect the Sun’s rays away from the Earth. Amidst the sci-fi technology, though, one suggestion caught my eye: No 23, for the Government to legally require one-third of all park land to be converted to “public fruit and nut orchards and community held allotments” for the production of food.
While the high-tech schemes for reducing climate change might grab many of the media headlines, ideas like this show the environmental movement at its most radical. [Read more →]
Filed under: Politics, Posts
See other entries about: climate change, environmentalism
ravcasleygera says:
Your argument contains several factual and logical errors and misstatements.
First of all, regarding Sweatt vs. Painter. You've fallen into a common misconception, that the Supreme Court ruled against the principle of "separate but equal" accomodations. This is not the case. The Supreme Court ruled that, in this case, the separate accomodations offered were not equal - because they didn't exist (there was no black law school in Texas). Even in
Brown vs. Board of Education, the Court did not reject, on moral or constitutional grounds, the idea that separate but equal education could fulfill the requirements of justice or the 14th amendment; rather, it noted ample socialogical evidence that, in practice, separate but equal education could not exist. The very fact of being separated had an inherently demoralising effect on black children. This is a factual, not a moral observation.
Ever since Barack Obama emerged as a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination commentators have been falling over themselves to evoke the memory of John F. Kennedy. Obama’s youth, short time in the senate, and relentless message of change all stir memories of the handsome young upstart who squeaked the presidency in 1960. With the endorsement of Obama’s candidacy by several senior Kennedys in late January, the comparisons became more frequent. “A president like my father”, Caroline Kennedy called Obama. The New York Times evoked Kennedy’s most successful book when it referred to Obama’s race speech as a “Profile in Courage”.
With JFK still generally revered by most Americans, particularly the white working-class voters Obama desperately needs to win over, it’s a comparison Obama’s people are happy to see made (despite the odd snipe by commentators). The truth is, though, that John F. Kennedy and Obama came from very different places politically - and had very different concepts of “change”. [Read more →]
Filed under: Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics, Posts
See other entries about: barack obama, bobby kennedy, john f kennedy
ravcasleygera says:
This recent news - that we need to aim for 350ppm, not 450 or 400 as previously thought - is super-depressing. Stern wrote even 450 off as unachievable.
At the risk of sounding like Bjorn Lomberg, if this is really what's needed to prevent more than 2 degrees of warming, then as well as campaigning we need honest studies and discussion of what kinds of emission reduction we need to stablisise at 350ppm. 60%? 80%? 95%? As long as there isn't an accepted figure for THAT vital metric, we can't convince the Lombergs etc that it's achievable and worth it - or, for that matter, even know for sure ourselves that it's worth it. People will use any shred of uncertainty as an excuse not to act.
So I think 350 actually *isn't* the vital number - what is is 90%, or whatever the global emissions reduction need is. Then that needs to be adjusted for rich countries' current higher-than-average emissions. I suspect the upshot will be that to get in line the US will need something like a 98% reduction in net emissions - some from clean energy, some from energy efficiency, some from reduced activity (waste etc) and some from sinks and mitigation.
Obviously we did not win, but what was achieved in a very difficult national context was remarkable.
Overall my first preference vote increased by 208,239 - 30 per cent, over 2004 - increasing in every GLA constituency except Bexley and Bromley. In the context of Labour’s lowest national vote for some decades that was a remarkable achievement.
In the London Assembly Labour actually won an additional seat and performed better than the national average. In the Mayoral context, I polled nearly 14 per cent more than the Labour vote nationally and nine per cent more than Labour in the London Assembly who themselves polled above Labour nationally.
That achievement of our campaign could not overcome the scale of the swing to the Tories throughout the country and in some London constituencies, notably Bexley and Bromley, Havering and Redbridge and West Central.
The swing to the Conservatives was assisted by the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in London, in part due to the conservative nature of their London Mayoral campaign.
It is noteworthy that a number of parties to the right of the Tories notably the BNP polled much higher in the Assembly list than in the Mayoral vote, suggesting that some of their voters voted tactically for Boris Johnson. The BNP got 61,004 votes more in the Assembly list than in the Mayoral election, for example.
In the City and East division there was actually a 2.9 per cent swing to me in the Mayoral election.
Overall, with more than a million votes the election showed a powerful progressive alliance in London.
There is no doubt that the new Mayoralty will inaugurate decline and division.
I hope you will therefore share my view that progressive London should remain organised and ready to face the challenges to come - including a general election.
Yours sincerely
Ken Livingstone
Putting a brave face on it, it seems
Filed under: Asides, Politics
See other entries about: ken livingstone, london, mayoral election 2008
ravcasleygera says:
On an unrelated point, I'm seriously concerned about the use of "underfire" as a one-word adjective.
Blog feed
Rav Recently
