Time for Britain to adopt the euro

Once Britain has decided to stay in the EU, as I hope and believe we will, our next move should be to adopt the Euro.
   Before you start ranting, please tell me why not? In what way is the pound superior to the euro? All the abuse hurled at the currency by all of Britain's media, even including supposedly progressive organisations such as The Guardian, is plain wrong.
   Adopting the euro would have immediate and lasting benefits for British businesses and also for all individuals travelling to another eurozone country. Yes, you personally would save money by no longer having to pay commission or lose out from poor exchange rates when going to any of the 19 countries in the eurozone, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and all of western Europe's principal nations.
    Wherever you go in that vast region of more than 330 million people, you will know immediately from the price of an item whether it is good value, without having to convert it back into pounds in your head.
   Two decades after the euro became a real currency, as opposed to a virtual one, noone can argue any longer that the euro will collapse because of a lack of political unity in Europe. It has remain remarkably strong against the dollar and the pound despite the absence of the political union that many analysts thought was necessary.
   The fact that no single political authority controls the European Central Bank may even have helped the euro. Yes, several countries within the euro zone have experienced economic difficulties, but the eurozone as a whole has remained economically strong throughout, possibly boosted by the fact that the euro area remains a group of nation states, hindering economic problems in an individual state from spreading to the wider euro area.
    In practical terms the euro has become the world's second reserve currency after the dollar. Investments and savings denominated in euros are as safe as those in any other currency.
    When Britain adopts the euro the government and the bank of England can stop worrying out the exchange rate and focus on Britain's underlying economic problems.
    The idea that a devaluation of the pound can be used as a spur to the economy has been comprehensively disproven by the lack of visible economic benefit from the sharp devaluation of sterling in 2016 after the Brexit vote.
     Such is the euro's success in non-bigoted continental Europe, that some countries - eg Kosovo and Macedonia - use the euro as their currency even though they are not in the EU, while some other EU regions - eg tourist areas in Turkey - treat the euro as an equally valid alternative currency to their own.
    Did Greece leave the euro when Germany was demanding an austerity packed in return for a rescue package? No it didn't - the citizens of Greece decided they preferred to keep the euro and remain in the EU, whatever Yannis Varoufakis might have proposed.
    Did Cyprus leave the euro when the Troika of the EU, European Central Bank and World Bank, were demanding a levy on bank accounts to restore the government's finances? No it didn't - Cyprus went ahead with the bail-in of large bank accounts.
    The government realised the opportunities were much greater if Cyprus kept the euro rather than bring back the Cyprus pound.
    Italy has recently been at loggerheads with the European Central Bank over plans to allow a wider budget deficit than EU rules mandate.
    Will Italy leave the euro? Why on earth should it? Italy has run a budget deficit of more than 100% of GDP for many years and sticking with the EU and the euro has shored up the economy after decades of regular devaluation of the lira until the Italian currency was a laughing stock.
    I could cite academic or financial sector research analysing the underlying strength of the euro, but why not just judge for yourself instead of letting other people tell you what to think.
  
Whenever you go in a shop or restaurant in France, Spain or any other of the 19 eurozone countries, see how the staff treat the euro. You will see that they don't think about it - the euro is just the currency they use on a daily basis, and that is obviously how it is going to stay.

Barnet's Future Shape should be sustainable

Barnet Council's Conservative leaders have given themselves until December to come up with ideas to turn their Future Shape strategy into a serious policy rather than just a collection of political soundbites.
Here's my proposal: Abandon the dogma about 'cuts' and 'privatisation', which might end up costing more money rather than creating savings. If they want genuine buzz words I suggest 'sustainability' and 'solar panels'.
Birmingham Council has agreed a 100 million pounds scheme to create jobs and sharply reduce the city's carbon emissions. The project will start by giving an energy efficiency upgrade to 10,000 existing homes and energy savings in the retrofitted homes will generate funding for similar work on thousands more homes in the city.
Birmingham is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration so why can't Barnet's Tories come up with a similar plan that would create jobs, improve the lives of occupants of the improved homes and lead to a sharp reduction in energy costs and carbon emissions?
Before anyone asks where Barnet would get the initial funding, can I point out that Birmingham Council itself is only putting up 25 million pounds, ie roughly the amount that Barnet Council handed over to Icelandic banks.
I'm sure banks (British not Icelandic ones please!) would be eager to lend Barnet Council the money for an equivalent energy savings scheme and there might be ways of reducing the council's proportion to an even smaller percentage of costs.
The feed-in-tariffs which energy companies pay for power from sustainable sources mean, for instance, that photovoltaic panels can generate surplus electricity every year worth up to 10 percent of the cost of their installation. After ten years the panels are paid for and the electricity is pure profit.
Companies and syndicates are starting to spring up to develop rooftop “sun harvesting” operations and Barnet Council's thousands of homes, schools and other buildings would be an extremely attractive resource.
That's the kind of project that Future Shape should be looking at: dynamic, exciting, forward-looking, job-creating and sustainable.

Brent Cross Cricklewood greenwash

The plans for the Brent Cross Cricklewood development are full of
utter 'greenwash', seeking to create a false impression about the
environmental sustainability of this multi-billion pound project.

For a start, these plans should be thrown out completely unless the
development partners pledge to make the whole site carbon neutral.

The proposed buildings are likely to exist for several decades at
least and there is no way whatsoever that the British government will
achieve its aim of a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by
2050 if concrete giants like the Brent Cross shopping centre are still
belching out carbon dioxide from heating, lighting and air
conditioning.

This scheme is an ideal opportunity to install energy conservation
measures and sustainable power facilities right from the beginning.
There is plenty of scope on the site for enough wind turbines, solar
arrays and ground source heat pumps to make the whole area carbon
positive, never mind carbon neutral.

So why aren't they doing it? As well as benefitting the environment,
carbon neutrality would save money for the people who live in the new
town and for the businesses, as their energy bills would be much lower
– they might even make money by feeding electricity back into the
grid.

Can it be that the developers are more interested in building cheaply
than in saving on running costs for the future occupants of the homes
and commercial buildings?

Secondly, at a time when neighbourhood shopping areas are under threat
all over London from post office closure, cut backs to libraries and
the marginal viability of many small shops and pubs, Barnet Council
should be studying the likely impact of Brent Cross Cricklewood on
other shopping areas in the borough.

For make no mistake, the scheme is not just about new housing and a
so-called town centre, the whole thing is based on "an expanded and
improved shopping centre", with an "enhanced retail offer including
new stores at Brent Cross Shopping Centre", to cite the developers'
own documents.

When the council has assessed the likely impact, it should order the
developers to pay whatever it costs to ensure the sustainability of
Hendon, Golders Green and the other nearby centres: better street
layouts, improved public transport, more greenery, more public
toilets, more benches to rest on or whatever it takes to ensure that
these neighbourhood areas remain available and attractive for local
residents to use.

Council Leader Mike Freer cannot genuinely oppose post office closures
and support sustainable communities at the same time as he is praising
the Brent Cross Cricklewood plans.

As for the transport issues surrounding the new plans, of course there
should be a direct rail link to the expanded shopping centre rather
than more car parking. The developers say they expect cars still to be
the main way that people get there but why is that? People will no
doubt continue to want to shop at Brent Cross but why should they
necessarily go by car? Do people go to Oxford Street by car? Of course
not, because it is properly served by London Underground lines and by
buses.

Save our Post Offices

The threat to shut eight post offices in Barnet borough as part of the planned closure of 171 branches in the London region strikes a blow to the very heart of the Green Party's concept of sustainable communities.

The government should widen the range of official business which can be carried out through post offices, to make them more sustainable.

Post Office Ltd should sharply lower its estimate of what is a reasonable distance for people to walk to a post office, since its current unreasonable limit is being used to justify many of the closures.

Barnet Council should be looking at new ways of keeping its local Post Offices open, as Essex County Council and many other authorities are doing.

We ourselves should be writing to Post Office Ltd to oppose the closure of our local branches and to challenge its individual justifications for shutting each of them.

The eight local branches scheduled for closure are:

Dollis Valley Way, Barnet
Potters Road, Barnet
Cricklewood Lane, Cricklewood
Pennine Parade, Cricklewood
East End Road, East Finchley
High Road, North Finchley
Nether Street, West Finchley
Watford Way, Hendon

to send a protest e-mail direct to Post Office Ltd go to:
http://www.postoffice.co.uk/portal/po/content1?catId=57600693&mediaId=66300707

Other parties are jumping on the protest bandwagon but the Green Party has always campaigned for the provision of key services such as post offices, libraries and schools within easy walking distance of everyone's home.

Stadium rot - Brown and Sarkozy's nuclear nonsense

Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France plan to launch a joint nuclear power programme when they meet at Arsenal's Emirates Stadium today (Thursday 27th Feb) for a Franco-British summit.
Fortunately, Trent Park and Totteridge Fields are safe. There is no prospect whatsoever of a nuclear power station being built in the Barnet or Enfield areas because local rivers like the Lee or Dollis don't have the vast amounts of water that these megaliths require.
The problem is that hardly anywhere else in Britain is suitable for nuclear power plants either, even in the unlikely event of local residents raising no objection.
The government thinks the best places for new nuclear power stations in England are next to existing ones at Sizewell in Suffolk, Dungeness in Kent, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex.
However, the four sites are on the coast and owner British Energy admits that all of them require new flood defences to protect them from rising sea levels.
This risk from erosion is just one of a dozen or more reasons why the Green Party thinks the many billions of pounds which new nuclear power plants would cost could be much better spent on energy conservation and developing sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar and marine power.
To cite just one of the other objections, Britain would have to import all the uranium to fuel new reactors, in the absence of any known deposits in this country.
This would put Britain's energy security at risk, especially as some of the biggest uranium mines are in Kazakhstan and Niger, from where it would be hard to guarantee supplies.
Maybe after all someone should run a geiger counter over Trent Park and Totteridge Fields in case there is a lode of uranium underneath... just kidding.

Slow down those Barnet roadhogs!

Barnet Green Party has written to Council Leader Mike Freer urging him to introduce 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads in Barnet.

This is following a pledge by Transport for London to provide support for boroughs which bring in the limit.

A 20 mph speed limit would be particularly welcome on those many roads, such as Ridgeview Road in Whetstone, which have been without any traffic calming measures since the speed humps were ripped up against residents' wishes a couple of years ago. This was done following Councillor Brian Coleman's pledge to remove all speed humps in the borough.

In addition to improving road safety, the introduction of 20 mph as the standard speed limit would reduce the incentive for drivers to use side roads as short cuts or rat runs, which is what many residential roads have become as as legacy of Coleman's campaign.

By reducing people's fear of being hit by fast-moving traffic, the limit could also encourage local people to cycle or to walk more, for instance when taking their children to and from school.

Mr Freer replied to say that he is waiting for for information about TfL's scheme but did not commit himself to any action.

French govt snaps up UK wave power technology

French state-controlled electricity company EDF - the world's biggest operator of nuclear power plants - has recognised the value of a UK wave power company. See contract announcement below.

What a pity that no British company had the foresight to buy the licence for this technology.

EDF Energies Nouvelles collaboration and investment

Renewable Energy Holdings plc (AIM: REH), the investor and operator of proven
and innovative renewable energy technologies, is pleased to announce that the
Company has entered into a collaboration agreement ("Collaboration Agreement")
with EDF Energies Nouvelles SA ("EDF EN") relating to REH's CETO wave power
technology. This follows the announcement of 27 July 2007 that the companies
had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding.

The terms of the Collaboration Agreement will permit EDF EN exclusively to
develop offshore wave power projects in the Northern Hemisphere and at Reunion
Island in the Indian Ocean (together, the "Territory of Exclusivity"), using
REH's proprietary CETO wave power technology. Further information on the terms
of the Collaboration Agreement is set out in the Appendix to this announcement.

In addition, also as announced on 27 July 2007, under the terms of the
Collaboration Agreement EDF EN has today invested a total of #3.0 million in
REH.


Mike Proffitt, Chief Executive Officer of REH, commented:

"We are very pleased indeed to have concluded our CETO Collaboration Agreement
with EDF EN and we look forward to working with them to develop CETO wave power
projects across the Northern Hemisphere.

"EDF EN's interest in the CETO wave power technology demonstrates that the CETO
wave energy device has an exciting commercial future ahead and the potential to
be a global success."


Paris Mouratoglou, Chairman of EDF Energies Nouvelles, said:

"EDF Energies Nouvelles is committed to develop new renewable energy
technologies. The wave energy potential is very significant and has been
identified as one of our future sources for growth. We are delighted to announce
the signing of our final agreement with REH and look forward to a successful
development of the promising CETO technology."


EDF EN's #3.0 million investment in REH is structured as follows:


1. EDF EN has subscribed #1.5 million for 3.0 million new ordinary shares
of 1 pence each in REH ("New Ordinary Shares") at a price of 50 pence per new
ordinary share (the "Equity Payment"). The Equity Payment which has been paid
into an escrow account administered by REH's solicitors, Herbert Smith LLP, is
held to the account of REH and will be released to REH upon the following
milestones in the commercial development of CETO being achieved:


Overall Equity Milestone definition Equity Payment New Ordinary
milestone released from Shares
escrow attributable to
milestone
1 Three CETO II units having been installed #500,000 1,000,000
and connected through the joint off-shore
pipeline into the on-shore collection
system.
2 30 days of performance data collection of #500,000 1,000,000
the total system (three CETO II units)
having been completed.
3 CETO III prototype unit has been #500,000 1,000,000
manufactured and is ready to ship ex works.

Wind power pays better than weapons

Money invested in weapons maker BAE Systems would have more than doubled in value last year if investors had sold their shares and bought stock in wind turbine makers instead.

BAE Systems gained 16 pct in 2007 but Vestas Wind Systems, the world's largest wind turbine maker, saw its shares soar 131 pct, taking its market value to a mighty 13.4 billion euros, fast catching BAE.

Fund managers can no longer claim that they can't invest ethically because they get better returns in unethical stocks such as BAE. In fact that excuse has been false for a number of years.

BAE's recovery takes the shares only fractionally above above where they were 10 years ago, whereas investments in Vestas have multiplied 33 fold in value since the company was first listed in May 1998.

Of course not all ethical or environmental stocks have had as a stellar a trajectory as Vestas but in recent years the sector has consistently performed as well as or better than the broad market. Over the past five years the Stoxx European sustainability index has climbed 61 pct, compared with a 46 pct gain by the Stoxx 50 index of European blue chip companies.

Even in Britain alone, where the ethical and environmental sector is relatively small because of lack of government encouragement, the FTSE4Good UK 50 index has kept pace with the benchmark FTSE 100 both during 2007 and over the past five years as a whole.

According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Barnet Council's pension fund held shares worth £3,255,178 in BAE Systems in mid-2007. I once again call on the fund's managers to sell that immoral stake and invest the money in ethical companies.

There is every prospect that 'green' industries will continue to grow strongly in Europe as governments step up their spending so that 20 pct of energy comes from renewable sources by 2020, a target agreed by all 27 European Union countries including Britain.

Germany has already created an estimated 200,000 jobs in industries that help fight climate change and Britain could do the same if the government and investment managers such as those who control Barnet Council's pension fund woke up to the economic opportunities of these new technologies.

BAE itself should convert its factories to the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels and marine power machinery. 'British Airpower Equipment' could even end up making more money than the group does from its current evil products.

Barnet's quarter-hearted energy targets

It is welcome news that Barnet Council has finally decided to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But what unambitious targets! I wouldn't even call them half-hearted - they are quarter-hearted at best.

More than 200 local authorities are already implementing energy savings projects and some have already achieved much more than the 5 pct cut in household consumption and 10 pct per organisation which Barnet is giving itself until 2012 to reach. Woking, for instance, has reduced the release of carbon dioxide by 17 pct across the whole borough as well as slashing the council's own contribution by 70 pct.

Why is Barnet Council not leading by example by installing solar panels and wind turbines at its own sites? For instance, Barnet House and the North London Business Park buildings would seem ideal for solar panels.

Actually, I can guess the answer to that question - I expect certain members of the Conservative administration are still opposed to the idea. Earlier this year Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the plan for a wind turbine at Frith Manor School. Perhaps he would rather have a nuclear power station on Totteridge fields?

Personally, I find wind turbines quite pleasing to look at. The council can build one next to my allotment any time it likes.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is becoming increasingly urgent, as shown by research published last week demonstrating that carbon dioxide levels in the world's atmosphere are rising faster than anyone has forecast.

Cutting consumption of fossil fuels is something we all should be doing for other reasons too, notably to conserve the world's rapidly depleting resources.

And people like Mr Coleman should bear in mind that lowering use of energy saves money. Woking Council saved £1 million over 10 years thanks to its CO2 reduction project.

Norway to build world's first osmotic power plant

Here are details of yet another better alternative to building new nuclear power stations:

Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.

Renewable energy better than nuclear power

My 11 reasons why the government should invest money in wind, soar and marine power rather than new nuclear power plants:

1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.

2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.

3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.

4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.

5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.

6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.

7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.

8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.

9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.

10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.

11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.

For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com

Frith Manor wind turbine

News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.

Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.

Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!

More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.

In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."

How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?

As a matter of urgency, the council should appoint a climate change officer to lead its own programme and provide a focus for assistance to the public.

News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.

Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.

Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!

More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.

In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."

How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?

As a matter of urgency, the council should appoint a climate change officer to lead its own programme and provide a focus for assistance to the public.

Keep ticket offices open at tube stations

Please campaign against the proposal by Transport for London to completely close the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East stations on the Northern Line as part of the closure of 40 ticket offices across London.

Any savings will be outweighed by a large fall in revenues from those stations, I believe. In addition, difficulties in buying a ticket are likely to cause many people to switch to alternative travel methods, while a heightened feeling of insecurity when no staff are around may put people off travelling by Underground, they say.

Revenues will fall at the three local stations because some people will be deterred from using the Northern Line and others will take advantage of the lack of supervision to travel without paying.

Around 40 pct of underground travellers still use paper tickets, according to TfL's own figures, and many of these are tourists and other infrequent travellers who are quite likely to need assistance.

In any case, TfL's claim that ticket offices are not needed at the three stations because most people use Oyster cards does not hold water, since the offices are not just used by people buying traditional paper tickets. Even Oyster users will need the ticket office from time to time, when they are having problems with the machine or if they have lost their card and need a replacement.

If, as TfL insists, staff will be redeployed elsewhere on the three stations, there is no reason why duty employees should not open up the ticket office as and when requested by travellers. Instead, even before the official closure date, staff are barred from selling tickets through the window outside the already-restricted opening hours.

The ticket office is the obvious place for anyone to go to if they want help with buying a ticket or need assistance reaching the platforms because of infirmity or disability. Similarly, if someone sees something suspicious, feels threatened or is actually being threatened or attacked, he or she will receive help much more quickly if there is someone visible at the station to appeal to, rather than use the communications devices which are being installed on local stations.

"The closure of the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East is likely to have a gradual and cumulative effect on the number of people using those stations. People who have a bad experience once may decide not to use the tube on future occasions when they might otherwise have done so," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green Party speaker on the environment.

For more detailts or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com

To make your own protest contact:

Customer Service Centre

London Underground

55 Broadway

London

SW1H 0BD

tel: 0845 330 9880

Set 20 mph limit near homes

All residential streets should have a 20 mph speed limit, along the lines of the plan agreed by Portsmouth City Council.
The limit could be a new safety measure or could be a replacement where road humps or other traffic calming installations have been removed.
Emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances are already exempt from speed limits so their journeys would not be hampered in any way.
Another advantage of a 20 mph limit is that much less petrol is needed to drive at a steady 20 than to keep slowing and accelerating, as many drivers do on roads with speed humps.
At a time when many children are being prevented from playing outside because their parents fear the potenial dangers, we should consider anything which can make the streets safer for our children to enjoy fresh air and get much-needed exercise.

Keep your beer miles low

Last Thursday I had a excellent pint of Adnams Bitter in the Cherry Tree in Woodbridge, Suffolk. I followed it with a delicious pint of Broadside and a superb pint of Oyster Stout, a rare treat. However, I kept off the Explorer. Why? Beer miles.

Explorer is made with imported hops - that is one of the marketing points. Evidence of climate change is increasing daily and cask ale brewers should be highlighting the fact that their beers involve less transport and therefore cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions than imported lagers or than beers made in Britain with imported ingredients.

There is much talk about the need to insulate your home and everyone is conscious of the environmental impact of cars and aeroplanes, but we should also take note that around one third of the average person's carbon footprint comes from the food and drink that he or she consumes. To help reduce our personal contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere we should all eat and drink only British products as far as possible.

Drink real ale to (help) save the planet!

Greens see red over Brown

Barnet Green party members say that Chancellor Gordon Brown's plan to increase tax on the most polluting cars to 400 pounds next April is nothing like enough to deter the owners of the gaz guzzlers which throng Barnet's roads.

When local people are paying upwards of 50,000 pounds for one of these environmentally-extremely-unfriendly vehicles, an extra 400 pounds for tax is hardly likely to make them think again.

A survey last year showed that 8,716 Band G vehicles were sold to Barnet residents in the five years to 2006, more than than to residents of any other London borough. "Never mind 400 pounds, the tax needs to be 4X400 pounds if it is to prompt a reduction in the number of these huge and menacing cars on our local roads," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green party speaker on transport.

For more details or to comment contact: andrewnewby1@gmail.com

Brent Cross plan needs improvement, say Greens

Barnet Green Party is calling for major improvements to the developers' proposals for the Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration Area.

The party has submitted these recommendations in response to the developers' consultation exercise:

1. All commercial and residential buildings should be carbon neutral. Micro-generation projects should be included in both residential and commercial developments so that as little electricity and gas as possible should be drawn from the grid system. The maximum possible energy conservation measures should be included.
Carbon neutral buildings will be more expensive to construct but will be considerably cheaper to occupy.

2. The improved bus station and the new bus station are welcome. Access for pedestrians, cyclists and buses should be prioritised over cars. Customers of Brent Cross should be encouraged to go there by foot, cycle, bus or train. The new railway station needs to be easily accessible and convenient for local people and shoppers.
Thought should be given to improving pedestrian and cycling access from adjoining residential and neighbourhood shopping areas, and also to pedestrian access from Brent Cross tube station to the shopping centre, which is almost impossible at the moment. The best solution would be a closer tube station with direct pedestrian access.

3. Nothing should be done that might have a harmful impact on existing neighbourhood shopping centres. Panels should be set up inside Brent Cross shopping centre promoting nearby shopping centres and giving directions to services which are available at those centres and not at Brent Cross, eg banks, post offices, libraries, internet cafes, public houses.

4. The parks and open spaces should be laid out in the way described, either before or at least at the same time as any other work begins on the development. They must not be delayed or forgotten about. There is a chance to enhance the Brent river as it passes through the development area and the upgrade must be carried out in such a way as to be attractive to people and beneficial to wildlife. A nature reserve should be set aside where plants, birds and animals can live undisturbed.

5. New allotments should be provided, for occupants of the new residential developments. The allotment site should be big enough to have a trading hut and to be self-managed by a volunteer committee.
For further details or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
To find out more about the developers' plans go to: http://www.brentcrosscricklewood.com/

What US spending on Iraq war would have bought

The New York Times says the money spent by the US government on the war in Iraq would have paid for universal healthcare in the US, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the country, immunisation for children round the world against a host of diseases, and still leave about half of the money left over.

Bush increasing defence spending, cutting welfare

In the US federal budget for the year to September 2008, George W Bush is proposing to an increase of 49 billion dollars or 11.3 per cent in the defence budget, to 481.4 billion dollars excluding the cost of the occupation of Iraq and the broad war on terror.

Including Iraq and the war in terror, the president is asking for a total of 716.5 billion dollars for defence in the coming financial year, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Given that the US already spends a greater proportion of national income on defence than any other country, next year's US defence budget therefore includes at least 284.1 billion dollars in unnecessary spending on defence.

In the same budget, Bush wants to slash 95.9 billion dollars from major benefit programs including Medicare, the federal healthcare programme for the elderly and disabled.

Needless to say, Bush want to continue with tax cuts for the wealthy which he introduced at the start of his presidency.