Green (Living) Review

Growing consumerism and consumption a much bigger problem than growing population

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

All the focus on population growth rates in the developing world and its impact on the environment could be rather misplaced. When it comes to environmental impact it is really rising rates of natural resource consumption, for which developed nations remain largely to blame, which is the bigger issue. There may be one developing nation that is the exception and that is China. But then again China's demand for natural resources is due the demand for more and more consumer goods and some of India's resource consumption is down to the same cause.

Women having fewer children, even without education or escaping poverty

In a growing number of places the sometimes-called 'population bomb' is beginning to defuse itself, it would seem.

Family-planning experts used to say that women only started having fewer children when they got educated or escaped poverty – like us, in the developed world. This goes as much for Bangladesh as for India as for Brazil, a hotbed of Catholicism. The most women have two just children, and nothing the priests say can stop millions of them getting sterilized. The local joke is that they prefer being sterilized to other methods of contraception because you only have to confess once. It may not be a joke.

Women are beginning to have smaller families because, for the first time in history, probably, they can. We have largely eradicated the diseases that used to mean most children died well before growing up, many well before their fifth birthday. Mothers do no longer need to have five or six children to ensure the next generation, therefore they do no longer have as many.

On the other hand, it would appear, misguided Christian groups of the born-again brigade advocate for women to have many children and many following such teachings go forth and have ten and more children.

Poor people are not the problem, but consumption by wealthy is

It is consumption, especially in the developed world, that is the real issue. The permanent hunt and desire for more, more and more still, aided and abetted even by our governments who urge us to spend in order to keep the economy going and growing.

It is possible that with half the world already at below-replacement birthrates, and with those rates still falling fast, that the world's population could probably be shrinking within a generation.

This is good news for the environment, for sure. However, let's not celebrate too fast.

For yet another myth, put out by the population doom-mongers, is the one that says that it is all those extra people that are wrecking the planet. That may no longer be the case.

Rising consumption, on the other hand, is today by a far bigger threat to the environment than any rising head count, and most of this extra consumption is still happening in rich countries that have long since given up growing their populations.

Virtually all of the remaining population growth is in the poor world, and the poor half of the planet is responsible for only 7 percent of carbon emissions. Therefore how dare rich-world greens blame the poor world for the planet's perils? Some greens need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

We have now even begun replacing – and more of that can be found in another article of mine – consumerism and consumption per se with green consumerism and green consumption, which I have coined as “greensumption”.

For people the world over, but also and especially in the developed world, to have fewer children is the greenest choice any of us can make. Stop at two, must be the watchword, for us and for others that have good enough health provisions to allow children to survive the once fatal illnesses and diseases that would affect them in childhood.

More People = Less Each Person Can Have

Recent studies by the Worldwatch Institute show how much consumption could be sustainably supported at different population levels. Roughly: At US consumption levels, it is about a billion and a half people; at current population levels everyone can have about what the average person has in Thailand; at projections for 2050 by the UN, it's more like lower middle class in India. This shows that population and consumption are intimately linked.

We must get away from the more, more, more mindset that is fueled not just by advertising and other suggestions but by our governments telling us that unless we help spending our way out of the downturn we are worse than terrorists. Well, so be it. I guess I am a terrorist then.

Every Building a Power Station

Every house, every building, an electricity generating station

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In order for us to continue to enjoy electrical power, sustainable power, once the oil age is over, something that seems to be closer than ever, every house, every building, every dwelling, must become an electricity generating station by means of wind and solar.

The power generated in this way must be of such a type that it can be stored in batteries for use when not enough wind or sun, and storing the energy cannot be done with our current – pardon the pun – system of alternating current of 110 – 240 volts.

Alternating current (AC) cannot be stored in batteries, only direct current (DC) can and thus we must change our system. This will require changes but those will have to be made.

This means, however, that the way we live will (have to) change in many aspects, transportation is one of them.

As far as electricity for anything, bar heavy industrial applications is concerned, we will be able to continue with a lot of it if we turn each and every building into a power station.

Turbines on the bridges over the Thames should become as common as trees in forests, as must turbine forests and PVs on houses and other buildings. The technology is there for this and capable inverters too for those appliances that may need higher voltage in AC.

One thing electric – and powered in any other way – that we better come to realize will be history, is the car and motorized transportation.

People think the cars and such will continue but with electric motors or running on bio-fuels. That, however, is, in my opinion, nothing but a dream only. Charging electric cars, especially many of them, just will not be feasible – regardless of how much they are being hyped by manufacturers.

Driving cars in any way, shape or form, if this I am sure, will soon end and human-powered vehicles, that is to say, bicycles and their derivatives, and animal-drawn ones will be the norm again. But I digressed.

With every building, every home, office, etc., being a power station, we will be able to maintain our communications, our computers and the Internet, I should think, and much of the other electrical uses we have become accustomed to, such as electric light, though this will be low-voltage LEDs and such, radios, etc.

Computers in home and offices and even elsewhere, and other appliances, including lighting, does not need high voltage AC but need only 12 volt DC, for instance. And thus small turbines and PVs on each and every building should be able to keep everything running nicely.

With oil or other fossil fuels having run out or are becoming too expensive to extract to be viable, and with nuclear being not and option – aside from the fact that without oil you can't extract and then process the uranium – we only have the renewable, natural power options; wind, solar, water, wave, tidal and current, and, maybe, using methane gas as a power source.

Wind is an option that, together with PV (solar) panels, can turn each and every building, essentially, into an electricity generating plant.

Hydro-power plants can be large and small scale and the same is true for wave and current too.

With current power I am referring to turbines that are set in the flow steam of rivers and brooks, into the prevailing current, where water wheels on the shores are not an option, or as an addition to those.

Our main aim must be for wind and solar on every available building, from the humbles dwelling to the largest building in the cities.

None of those turbines need to be gigantic or obtrusive and neither need they be a problem in any other way.

The one thing that is, alas, missing – it would appear – is the political will and conviction to – one – tell the people that we are headed for an end to the oil age and – two – to in fact let such building of home power stations to go ahead.

We only need to look at our cities, whether London, Paris, Amsterdam, or New York or Chicago. There is roof space galore where wind could be captures and solar and turned into electricity. And not only is this feasible; it is something we must do and it is now that we must do it.

While it certainly will take a little getting used to, the skyline of our cities, towns and villages with wind turbines and solar panels everywhere, soon it will be no more different in our minds than it was before, but it will make a great difference to energy security of our countries. I also believe that the Planet will thank us.

While we may just about beginning to properly run out of oil – and there may still be a little while to goo as regards too coal – and when I say “running out of” I am, as said, referring to the running out of the oil, gas and coal that is viable to be gotten out of the ground – but we should do this transition to making every building a power station now, without further delay.

For more on Peak Oil and about what a world after the oil age could be like in my new book “The End of Oil” published by Tatchipen Media and available via: http://the-end-of-oil.blogspot.com/ and you can read an extract here.

Clean+Green by SeaYu Founds Fragrance Free Day

Social Media Event Designed to Increase Awareness of Potential Health Risks On Friday, August 13

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

SeaYu® Enterprises, makers of Clean+Green® eco-friendly pet stain and odor removers, is declaring Friday, August 13th unlucky for chemical fragrance by founding the first ever Fragrance Free Day

Fragrance Free Day (#fragrancefreeday) is a social media event by which people are asked to tell the world via their social networks that they’ll go “fragrance free” for one day. This awareness campaign comes at a time when, according a recent report by ABC News, “Congress and the cosmetics industry are both calling for tighter regulation of the chemicals used in cosmetics and other personal care products due to concerns over possible carcinogens and other toxic ingredients.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/toxic-cosmetics-draw-congressional-attention/story?id=11228491

As part of the event, the company will host a live Q&A on Twitter, featuring SeaYu’s CEO Quincy Yu, organic chemist Dr. Stephen Ziman and veterinarian holistic pet health expert Dr. Carol Osborne, DVM (http://www.drcarol.com/).

Anyone with questions on the safety of products they’re using for personal care can Tweet them with the hashtag #fragrancefreeday on Friday, August 13 from 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM EST and have their question answered by one of the experts through SeaYu’s Twitter account (http://www.twitter.com/seayu).

“Fragrance Free Day gives concerned consumers a chance to help spread awareness of the dangers associated with fragrance/chemicals in personal care and household cleaning products by pledging to go “fragrance free” via their social networks,” said Quincy Yu, CEO of SeaYu Enterprises. “We encourage everyone to help the world breath easier by pledging not to use any fragranced products for one full day.”

According to the report by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group, “Not So Sexy, the Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrances," they found 14 secret chemicals not listed on the labels that are associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products. The study also notes that numerous other products used daily, such as shampoos, lotions, bath products, cleaning sprays, air fresheners and laundry and dishwashing detergents, also contain strongly scented, volatile ingredients that are hidden behind the word "fragrance." The Environmental Protection Association (EPA) has weighed in, too – they state that fragranced products – like air fresheners, fabric refreshers and traditional cleaning products -are one of the leading contributors to poor indoor air quality, which can lead to health issues.

“Animals have faster metabolisms and smaller lungs than humans, so not only are they processing harmful chemicals used in the home more quickly, they are also breathing them in at a faster rate,” said Dr. Carol Osborne, DVM “Because animals are closer to the ground, they are more often in direct contact with these harmful substances making Fragrance Free Day of special importance for pet owners everywhere.”

More information is available via Quincy Yu’s blog post about Fragrance Free Day (http://www.odorandstainremover.com/wordpress/?p=454) and also via the Fragrance Free Day event page on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=139865449376889&ref=ts).

Seeing from what there seems to be lurking in the chemical fragrances, particularly in the USA, to ban them entirely would be a very good idea.

Many chemicals that are used to create those fragrances, and not just in so-called air-fresheners. Air-fresheners my you know what! None of them freshen the air; they pollute it while masking any smells with powerful chemicals.

Many personal scents are not too healthy either, it would seem, and thus, maybe, we should also abandon the chemical perfume industry.

If you have to use anything then make sure it is natural; not because it says natural on the spray can, but because you know it is. Get potpourri to keep a room smelling nice, including the lavatory. Just use the right stuff. Incense sticks, so-called Joss sticks, too can be very effective.

Green MP prompts parliament to introduce Meat Free Monday

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP has asked the parliamentary catering authorities to consider introducing Meat Free Monday to the catering outlets in parliament.

The Meat Free Monday campaign, which is being pursued all around the UK by environmental and other groups, is encouraging local authorities, schools and other public and private bodies to allocate one day a week to providing a totally animal-free menu in order to help tackle the world's environmental and other problems.

Caroline Lucas MP explains in her letter: "Farming and slaughtering animals is now recognized as a significant contributor to today's greatest environmental problems. According to the United Nations, animal farming is responsible for 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire transport sector combined. As well as saving carbon, reducing the amount of meat in our diets will also help improve health.

"Parliament could send a powerful message and set a great example by designating one day a week as Meat-Free, and we very much hope that you will be supportive of this initiative."

The letter was co-signed by Lib Dem MP John Leech.

"Opt for quality over quantity," say Greens

A Green Party spokesperson said today: "The central message of the campaign is that one meat-free day a week can make a difference.

"This is not about expecting everyone to become vegetarian or to restrict people's choices, but to spread awareness of the impacts that people's individual and collective choices can make.

"Meat Free Monday is an inventive and useful idea. The Green Party would like to see the UK move towards a situation in which people who choose to eat meat will opt for quality over quantity. A smaller amount of better-quality meat, produced in a sustainable way from animals that are well looked-after, would make for a tastier and healthier diet, better animal welfare and a significant contribution to tackling climate change."

The Green Party spokesperson said that it is not about expecting everyone to become vegetarian or to restrict people's choices, and this is good to hear for all too often those that are avid vegetarians and vegans try to browbeat others to their way of thinking.

But, let's face it. Not so long ago meat was expensive and most people could only afford it every now and then. Today we expect – at least the great majority – to have meat every day. I personally knew someone who would not go without her meat every day. No way. She died of a heart attack. Though the latter probably was more due to her smoking than the meat but...

While I do eat meat and see nothing wrong with doing so I rather have vegetables and ideally from my own garden.

When I was a child meat was still very expensive and it was vegetables and bread most of the time. Meat was something that we had when we got it, either by hunting it, or when we had the money to buy it. So, it was not all that common; maybe once a week.

Remembering that meat was that expensive and is now so comparability cheap that people seem to have at least once a day we really have to ask ourselves how it came about that meat all of a sudden became thus. I at least do and wonder.

Heating in a Post-Oil Age World

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Without oil and coal it could be rather cold prospects as wood is no longer plentiful and also does not have the same BTU as coal or oil.

While wood and peat was the heat source before coal and oil it was also a case of much fewer people on this Planet then compared with today and we would not have enough firewood to go around today to meet all the demand, for it is not just heating homes that is the issue.

So, what now?

And the truth is that I do not know the answer to this and thus will be playing with some issues and possibilities here, in the absence of a working crystal ball that could tell us the future and the how to do it without oil and coal.

All I can say is that wood, being probably basically the only heating material around after the oil and other fossil fuels are gone, will be unable to fulfill the needs of everyone.

Already in the winters of 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, in the UK, it was necessary to import firewood from as far afield as Poland and the Ukraine because our own woodlands could not supply the demand.

The main reason for that failure to be able to supply, however, was not so much a lack of suitable wood but the fact that the majority of woodland owners do not, presently, manage their woods in any way, shape or form. Thus the wood falls and rots and that's about it.

Actually, that too creates an environmental problem in that the decaying wood not only releases carbon back into the air but a gas many times more dangerous to the Planet; methane.

It is the woodland management – or lack of it – that needs changing first and foremost and even then we may still have problems unless we can get super-efficient stoves for cooking and heating.

There is a great deal of wood that could be used but which is not turned into firewood (or any other use for that matter). Instead it is left as the now discredited “habitat piles” or otherwise left laying about where it releases, as said, both the carbon that it has stored during the lifetime of the tree and methane, while it decays.

Therefore, even from an environmental standpoint it would be much better to burn it as a heat source as that way only carbon is released and not methane. The latter being reckoned to be up to 20x more dangerous a greenhouse gas than carbon.

When it comes to hating our buildings – homes, offices, etc. – after oil we also and foremost must insulate them so that the heat loss is reduced to an absolute minimum and that they retain heat. We may, however, have to redesign many of them.

Lots of glass, for instance, even if it is triple-glazed, does not make for an efficient building, as far as heat retention is concerned.

It was proven in a study done on old offices in Canada that the smaller, recessed windows are better in keeping the heat in in winter and also in keeping the buildings cooler in summer.

Looks a bit as if the architects of the 19^th century knew more than we give them credit for. It is then time, I think, that we rethought the way that we design and build, pardon the pun, buildings.

Many years ago now I encountered some forestry houses in Britain and especially in Central Europe that were built to work well in cold and heat.

Heating was by wood, and on those houses in Central Europe, via a Kachelofen, a brick and tile built stove in the corner of the main room, and hot air was “piped” into every room via channels in the walls. And those walls were about two feet thick and windows were well recessed into the walls.

Those buildings were cool in the summer's heat a cozy warm in the deepest of winters.

Maybe our architects could take some lessens from how those old ones did things and designed and build houses and other buildings.

Let us remember that the old Romans already had underfloor heating in the fist century AD. Something that had to be “rediscovered” by us as all that knowledge was lost in the Dark Ages.

If we can insulate our building properly then keeping warm in a post oil world for all of us might work out; if not, I think, we are screwed.

As far as heat source, in the after oil and other fossil fuel age is concerned, firewood is one and a proven one but we must also find others and methane gas, produced via disgesters, might be one option.

Geothermal, if we really can make it work, could be an additional option in some places but whether it is a possibility in all areas is questionable.

We better get down to developing those options now and that rather pronto before things go south. Hanging about too long could leave us up the creek without a paddle and in a leaking canoe to boot and could cost the lives of many people.

As far as I can see geothermal is still a long way from being anything like really mainstream though waste incinerating combined heat and power plants (CHP plants) could be a viable option in and for the cities.

The end of oil, and other fossil fuels, could leave us very much out in the cold and in the cold even indoors if we are not careful and don't act now.

First of we need to insulate the buildings while at the same time developing additional sources of heating. Also at the same time we must develop our woodlands and bring them back into proper management and then we must develop the right kind of super-efficient wood heating and cooking stoves that will make it possible to use wood. Combine that with the other sources, such as methane gas production and we may just about get somewhere.

But, we must not lose any more time.

To learn more about Peak Oil, how it could affect you and what a society post Oil Age might look like get and read the book “The End of Oil”. You can obtain the book via http://the-end-of-oil.blogspot.com/

Cycle hire scheme good – but more needed for outer London boroughs says sustainable transport charity

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The announcement on the introduction of the London Cycle Hire Scheme is a welcome addition to the capital, but, according to sustainable transport charity Sustrans, its focus on central London cycle journeys needs to be widened to get even more people on bikes.

Carl Pittam, Sustrans’ Director in London , said: 'The London Cycle Hire scheme is a positive move for helping to mainstream cycling and raise its profile. But, the scheme is only active in central London at present, despite Transport for London analysis highlighting that 70 per cent of the potential for cycling is in the outer London Boroughs.

'Sustrans would like to see more such schemes catering for journeys outside central London and more emphasis – and funding - going to support initiatives to encourage children, young people and women to take to two wheels.'

In addition to the fact that the scheme is just based in, basically, central London the bikes look and feel rather heavy and seem to me, at least, of a dubious design and better ones, that might have even been cheaper, could have been had.

Furthermore, the luggage carrying capability is nigh on zero making those bicycles useful, maybe, for someone just needing to go from A to B without the need of carrying laptop, briefcase, or shopping.

It would appear that this is, yet again, one of those schemes by the office of the London Mayor that has not been thought out too well and was not put out to proper consultation with people and NGOs that might have been advising them a little.

Visiting the Cycle Show at Earl's Court last year or so would not have been a bad idea either for those that were working on the scheme. It does not look as if they did though.

Is the Military Option Back on the Table?

Has the US’ military option against Iran moved up from the bottom of the list again

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

During July 2010, a small number voices in the United States have called for a reassessment of a military option against Iran.

While some of these figures refused to identify themselves by name they are suggesting that they are part of the security or political establishment; some former senior officials, however, did identify themselves by name.

Most notable among them was the former head of the CIA, General Michael Hayden, who explicitly stated in an interview with CNN that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not the United States’ worst option.

Hayden noted that when he served as the head of the CIA (until February 2009), the military option was at the bottom of the list, but it now seems more likely since all the steps by the United States have proven insufficient to stop Iran from continuing on its path towards a nuclear weapons capability.

Hayden’s remarks have echoed former senators Daniel Coats and Charles Robb and General Charles Wald, former deputy commander of the United States European Command, who as early as September 2009 published a joint article that called for a strong approach towards Iran: if talks with Iran fail, it is incumbent upon the United States to abandon negotiations, prepare for military action in the Gulf area, consider the option of imposing a blockade on Iran, and as a last resort, consider a military strike on Iran, the inherent dangers notwithstanding.

Considering that for since the beginning of July 2010, or around that time, two US Navy Carrier Groups are in fact laying off the Iranian coast with, as it would appear, IDF personnel on board which joined just after the vessels had passed through the Suez Canal, this all would add up.

But the US administration does not share this position, repeating that while all options, including the military option, are on the table, attacking Iran is a poor choice, dangerous, and therefore not desirable in light of the current circumstances.

Between the lines, though, it appears that a certain change is emerging in the American security establishment or among certain elements within it regarding the military option.

The change in tone was reflected in part in a recent interview by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.

Despite his recurring reservations about military measures, Mullen cast the military options as “an important option,” and stated that if the administration reached a moment of decision and the need for a plan for military action arises, one is already in place.

While the President, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, seems to be stating that the military option again Iran would be a bad one the military seems to have different ideas and it would appear that the US military is beginning to “its own thing”.

The same seems to be with the security apparatus in the United States as a whole in the shape of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and others.

The confirmation of the existence of military plans, even if no surprise, then does mesh well with April 2010 statements by administration officials that the American security establishment is engaged in the preparation of military alternatives, which will be presented to the president in the event that diplomacy and sanctions do not prove effective.

An Israeli source also said recently that the United States did not have a military option a year ago but currently the Americans are exhibiting a serious approach to plans for a military procedure, which has now become a viable option.

American defense sources confirmed that US Central Command, which is responsible for most of the Middle East, is progressing significantly in planning the targets of an air strike in Iran.

Other voices have been joining these outspoken ones from the United States and amongst those are moderate Arab states, especially the Gulf states, who are showing increasing concern regarding Iran’s advance toward nuclear weapons and the United States’ failure, as they seem to see it, to impede it.

One can but wonder as to whether everyone has gone mad.

However, this must also be seen in the light of oil and the arrival of various sources not admitting and being concerned of the fact that we are running out of the cheap and easily exploitable oil.

With UN sanctions now having been issued, so to speak, against Iran there is no oil coming from that area and thus, just like it was with Iraq, ways must be found by the powers-that-be and those that control them to get their dirty grubby hands on that black sticky stuff in Iran.

That is also the reason why we are in Afghanistan and mess around in Pakistan and yes, I do know that Afghanistan, and probably also Pakistan, do not actually have any oil. They are both, however, directly next to Iran and thus make a great place from where to hit the Iranians from another area.

That is also why the USA and NATO are so friendly with the various -stans that border Iran in the North, all of which have problems in the human rights department, to say it politely.

Like when the USA supported this or that tinpot fascist dictator in Central and South America for similar reasons, they support the repressive regimes in those -stans of the former Soviet Union; namely the reason that those -stans permit the US military to have bases there from which they could hit Iran, if they wanted to.

Has it really to do anything with Iran working on nuclear issues, and as they claim, for civil applications only? I should think not. It has everything to do with the black sticky fossil liquid, namely oil and that is all. Plain and simple. In the same way that the claim was that Saddam Hussein supposedly had WMDs and for that reason we had to go in and in the end kill him. It was also only about oil and nothing else, regardless of claims.

And why all those war preparations? Because the cheap oil, on which the global economy is based, and all living standards in the developed world, is built, has, basically, run out. We went past so-called “Peak Oil”, according to some well informed sources, a couple of years ago, and we are now using more than we can get out of the ground.

There has been many wars fought over oil before and the attack of Nazi Germany against the USSR was in part to do with oil as well, as they wanted the oilfield at Baku, and those wars will be getting fiercer the more difficult it is going to get to get to the remaining economically viable extractable oil. That is why we rattling sabers off the Iranian coast and that is why there is so much violence associated with oil.

To learn more about Peak Oil and what a society post Oil Age might look like get and read the book “The End of Oil”. You can obtain the book via http://the-end-of-oil.blogspot.com/

G20 police officer implicated in death will not be charged

A riot squad officer filmed knocking Ian Tomlinson to the ground during the G20 protests will not be prosecuted over his death.

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge the police officer who was seen pushing a newspaper seller, who may not even have been a protester, at the G20 in London who died minutes later.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said that after a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the CPS has decided that there is no realistic prospects of a conviction against the police officer in question for any offense arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him.

The death of Mr Tomlinson, 47, became global news after amateur video evidence emerged that challenged the original official version of events.

Police told the newspaper seller's widow and nine children he died of a heart attack after being caught up in crowded streets around the protests.

But footage later showed Mr Tomlinson being struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan Police's controversial territorial support group.

Mr Tomlinson was hit by a baton and shoved to the ground by an officer wearing protective clothing. He may also have been bitten by a police dog.

He was found several minutes later after staggering about 100 metres into Cornhill, near St Michael's Alley, where he collapsed on the ground.

Once again this shows that they can do as they like, in the same way that the majority, it would appear, had their FINs removed, that is to say their identification numbers, thus making it impossible to report them for misconduct directly identifying them via those numbers.

British police officer have to wear their FIN, the force identification number, at all times and removal is not permitted. However, as I saw for myself on that day in London, hundreds of officers had no FIN displayed on their uniforms and officers were overheard bragging that they were going to give it to the protesters.

One has to wonder what ever happened to the free and democratic country, that once bastion of liberty in Europe, the United Kingdom? Legitimate protests are now policed like riots and people are treated as terrorists if they participate is environmental protests and such, and even children are subjected to strip searches by officers of ordinary police and officers of the special police units that now seem to be in charge of policing power stations, for instance.

The latter units seem to be nothing more than thugs in uniforms who are even, routinely, armed to their teeth and who love to brandish those weapons about.

To paraphrase Heine who spoke of Germany and even that in a different context one could say that “Think I of Britain in the night I am of sleep bereft” for it is becoming a rather worrying situation the way that people can now become terrorists, in the eyes of the police, just for protesting for the environment and also for taking photographs in certain places and at events.

What did we allow to happen here?

End Cities Criminalizing Homelessness

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Last November, a homeless man in Boulder, Colorado named David Madison tried to get a bed for the night at the city's only local shelter, but was turned away due to a lack of space.

Without any other options, Madison ended up on the sidewalk with just a sleeping bag to protect him on a night when the temperature dipped to 11 degrees. He was approached by the police, but rather than offer assistance, they gave Madison a ticket for "camping," which is illegal in Boulder.

Madison wasn't camping, of course. There was no campfire and certainly no s'mores. However, the City of Boulder keeps on the books – and fervently enforces – a thinly veiled anti-homelessness law that says sleeping outdoors with "shelter" of any form, including a sleeping bag or even a blanket, constitutes illegal camping.

The ticket given to Madison was one of just 1,600 issued over the last four years. The homeless are rarely able to pay their fines and few show up for court hearings, resulting in warrants for their arrest. When they're apprehended, they are given two days in jail – one for the camping and one for the court no-show. This will, probably, also mean that after that they are shown as “felons” on the records.

Since 2006, Boulder taxpayers have paid for well over 1,000 nights in jail for people ticketed for sleeping outdoors, the vast majority of whom are homeless.

While the camping ordinance of Bolder, CO is only one of countless laws across the United States with the primary objective of criminalizing homelessness, at the same time as the economy is forcing a dramatic rise in the homeless population. There are also ordinances to make being homeless a crime in many other cities around the world and even entire countries have, as does the UK, so-called “vagrancy” laws which make living rough a crime, period, regardless where. Also being of “nomadic habit” seems to be a crime in many places which, again and again, puts the traveling Romani People at odds with the law.

Miami, FL recently considered prohibiting the public from feeding the homeless, Venice Beach police began chasing homeless people off the beach after midnight, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom continues to push an ordinance that would ban sitting on city sidewalks.

Being homeless is not a crime – and the behavior necessary for survival shouldn't be either. Rather than punishing the homeless, we should be supporting them with services that help them get back on their feet.

There are many reasons for people becoming homeless and it is not always drugs and alcohol, and neither is being just released from jail, though those can and do play a role.

In the US there are entire families sleeping rough, with children, and the majority of those are “on the street” because the families have fallen on hard times and lost their homes.

Begging, something that many homeless people, individuals and families, are forced to do because of the fact that they cannot work, even if they wanted to, is a crime in the great majority of places around the world.

While it must be said that some begging operations that happen, such as the organized ones by some of clans and groups of the Romani People, which I have to admit, sadly, being Gypsy myself, do not fall into the category of homeless people trying to get some money to survive but are something else entirely, and should be prosecuted to the full extent, begging for survival should be treated differently altogether.

Homelessness and the economic activities that are needed to sustain life should not be seen as a crime and laws need to be changed to reflect the true situation.

Let's Talk Rubbish

A new book on reusing and upcycling trash

Epsom, Surrey, UK, August 2010: In “Let's Talk Rubbish”, published in August 2010 by Tatchipen Media, the Romani Publishing & Media Company, the author, Michael Smith (Veshengro), is not talking rubbish but about rubbish, about trash, or whatever else you may call it, and about how we can reduce it in our homes and at our places of work.

This 82-page book in A4 format is full of food for thought and ideas and projects of reusing and reworking and upcycling all manner of waste materials into something useful, and that in most cases almost instantly.

In a number of separate chapters from tin cans over glass jars to miscellaneous items the author is trying to communicate to the reader ideas of how he can make an impact by making things he may want or need from waste materials rather than going out and buying them.

The prime example would be the pencil bin. Many people rush out to buy a metal pencil bin – oh, it is made from recycled steel and ONLY costs $8 – while at the same time they have just thrown a perfectly good one into the trash or, if we are lucky, the recycling bin in the for of a clean tin can. That is a better recycled one than one made from recycled metal costing loads of money.

Other items upcycled are glass jars into lamps, electric and oil, drinking vessels, and rehydration vessels.

Then there are ideas as to what to do with all the one-side only printed pages in the office, all the card stock from cereal packs, and much, much more.

But, as the authors says, “Let's Talk Rubbish” is very much a “work-in-progress” in that it, more than likely, would never be finished, as more and more ideas come along all the time.

The book “Let's Talk Rubbish” is currently available only as an E-book and only available for purchase via “Let's Talk Rubbish” website http://letustalkrubbish.blogspot.com/ using PayPal. E-book will be dispatched via email immediately upon receipt of funds and notification from PayPal.

The author of “Let's Talk Rubbish” is Romani-Gypsy of origin and has written extensively on such diverse issues as green living, general and green politics, homesteading, recycling, Romani affairs and politics. He lives in Epsom, Surrey, England.

Archive