We have just been sent an invitation to apply for a Green Award. Of course, any one who reads my blog will have a fair idea of my reaction. Go to the website and see just how green the event itself is! http://www.greenawards.co.uk/awards_night/the_venue
So why on earth would any green organisation want to enter such a competition? And why would any seriously green organisation want to pay £75 for the privilege of entering in the first place, and then go to the expense of paying to go to the Dinner?
Answers on a postcard, or by email
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Thursday, 5 June 2008
The Menace of the Cat
The Menace of the Cat is the title of a leaflet I purchased on ebay recently, with a couple of other items all dating from 1922 and earlier. And it is an issue that has not gone away. My ebay purchases were all published in the USA, and despite all the evidence of the enormous damage that domestic and feral cats cause to wildlife, in almost all parts of the world, they are still allowed to roam free. In 1922 it was estimated that cats, in New York State alone, were responsible for killing at least 3.5 million birds, mostly songbirds.
These early pamphlets were all advocating licencing of cats, as a way of controlling their numbers. In fact, the spread of rabies has helped control cats in many parts of the US, as cat owners don't want their pets to come into contact with wild possums, raccoons and other species. But in Britain cats are probably more abundant than they have ever been. And almost every cat owner will defend their darling moggies claiming either 'They don't kill birds' or 'They only kill the occasional bird'
But even with a low estimate of the number of cats in Britain, of 10 million, back in 2003, the Mammal Society estimated that cats killed around 300 million mammals and birds a year. Another point to bear in mind is that cats often kill birds when they are at their most vulnerable -- when feeding young, and gathering food for nestlings. And cats do not always kill for food. They are often well fed, with cat food (another subject for the environmentally conscious), and consequently will kill to excess.
But it is a political hot potato, and I can't see the RSPB taking up the cudgels and lobbying for cat licensing, or a ban on cats roaming freely. Nor BirdLife International. The American Bird Conservancy, is one of the few major bird organisations that has really stood up and put its head above the parapet.
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/
But unlike many of the other ways that wildlife is under attack, free roaming cats are something we could bring a halt to. Once upon a time dogs roamed the streets of England -- in my childhood I remember them being let out of an evening in suburban London -- and that is now a thing of the past. Time the same happened to cats?
These early pamphlets were all advocating licencing of cats, as a way of controlling their numbers. In fact, the spread of rabies has helped control cats in many parts of the US, as cat owners don't want their pets to come into contact with wild possums, raccoons and other species. But in Britain cats are probably more abundant than they have ever been. And almost every cat owner will defend their darling moggies claiming either 'They don't kill birds' or 'They only kill the occasional bird'
But even with a low estimate of the number of cats in Britain, of 10 million, back in 2003, the Mammal Society estimated that cats killed around 300 million mammals and birds a year. Another point to bear in mind is that cats often kill birds when they are at their most vulnerable -- when feeding young, and gathering food for nestlings. And cats do not always kill for food. They are often well fed, with cat food (another subject for the environmentally conscious), and consequently will kill to excess.
But it is a political hot potato, and I can't see the RSPB taking up the cudgels and lobbying for cat licensing, or a ban on cats roaming freely. Nor BirdLife International. The American Bird Conservancy, is one of the few major bird organisations that has really stood up and put its head above the parapet.
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/
But unlike many of the other ways that wildlife is under attack, free roaming cats are something we could bring a halt to. Once upon a time dogs roamed the streets of England -- in my childhood I remember them being let out of an evening in suburban London -- and that is now a thing of the past. Time the same happened to cats?
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
New Naturalists
The Collins New Naturalist series has in recent years been the subject of a hyper inflationary price rise. Collectors have been snapping them up, and there has appeared a group of obsessive collectors, who must have first editions, complete with mint dust wrappers. Now to a naturalist such as myself, this is plain daft. In some cases the second editions are of course more use, because any typos and other errors have been dealt with. And a dust wrapper (very attractive in the case of most New Nat's) is only a piece of easily reproduced paper. In fact I am sure there are a significant number of fakes floating around, since modern photocopies make it very easy, and there are plenty of suckers who will pay a huge premium for one of the rarer volumes if it has a near mint dust-wrapper. And one of the rarer volumes is also the one on Ants, which was actually withdrawn by the publishers (making it rare). Therefore, it is a collectors market, not a naturalists demand that has pushed the prices up. So it was with great delight I noticed that the market appears to be becoming saturated, and confidence is declining. One can now go on to eBay and buy many of the titles at significantly less than their apparent "market value". And even at these greatly reduced prices, they are not actually selling -- perhaps because the dealers are not snapping them up any more. This can only be a good thing for the book buying naturalists. The New Naturalist books are without question some of the finest publications available, but they need to be used. Not put in some collectors cabinet to form a set.
Brazilian hardwoods
I have a large old shed covered with what I thought were very wide elm boards. And recently when remodelling the shed, we moved some of the boards around, and made a discovery. Stamped on one was 'Made in Brazil'. So they weren't elm at all. They were tropical hardwoods -- no wonder they were in such good condition after so long. There is no way I could feel guilty, they were old, dating from ca. 1984, if not before, they were being re-used when they were first put on the shed, and I was now re-using them again. And this is what is so important. Re-using is always better than recycling, and I am horrified at the vast quantities of perfectly good timber (mostly from pallets) that I see going into skips. It is perfectly re-usable. Pallets make extremely good compost bins. Four tied together creates a very good bin, which if bought custom made will cost £50 or more. So rather than just switching off a light, or the standby on the TV, why not re-use some timber? And help save the rainforests.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
A Voice from the past
While doing some filing I came across a paper I had written 27 years ago. It was presented at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and as I recall caused a considerable rumpus at the time. In fact the Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund contacted the Lord Craigton the Chairman of the Fauna Preservation Society (now FFI), and asked that I resign -- I was the Executive Secretary. It is difficult over a quarter of a century later to see what all the fuss was about, but it reached the columns of the Times newspaper, with conservationists joining in to defend my comments.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/future-extinctions.pdf
What I found interesting re-reading this paper (and it should be borne in mind it was given to the Palaeontolgy section of the Conference)is that nearly a decade before we founded the World Land Trust, it was already becoming apparent that land purchase was going to be the best way of conserving wildlife.
And interestingly, at the time I was writing a new glacial period seemed more likely than he global warming we are now recording. Times change, but the number of endangered species continues to spiral out of control. And then as now, human population was the key issue. And it still remains unaddressed.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/future-extinctions.pdf
What I found interesting re-reading this paper (and it should be borne in mind it was given to the Palaeontolgy section of the Conference)is that nearly a decade before we founded the World Land Trust, it was already becoming apparent that land purchase was going to be the best way of conserving wildlife.
And interestingly, at the time I was writing a new glacial period seemed more likely than he global warming we are now recording. Times change, but the number of endangered species continues to spiral out of control. And then as now, human population was the key issue. And it still remains unaddressed.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Lewis Wind Farm Refused Consent by the Scottish Government
An update from WLT supporter, Deborah Kilner, on the proposed wind farm in Lewis.
When I wrote about the proposed Lewis wind farm (in 2004!), I never dreamt it would take until April 2008 to get a decision - thankfully, a full refusal of this inappropriate scheme put forward by AMEC and British Energy. The members of Moorland without Turbines (MWT) have continued to work tirelessly in defence of their much loved environment and they deserve sincere congratulations for their succesful campaign.
The Scottish Government's Energy Minister, Jim Mather, made the following quotes on why the scheme was rejected:
"I have considered this application very carefully. I have listened to representations from the applicant, taken the views of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Western Isles Council) and considered the 10,924 objections and 98 letters of support."
"The Lewis Wind Farm would have significant adverse impacts on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is designated due to its high value for rare and endangered birds."
There is no doubt that the professional approach of the MWT volunteers in persisting with rallying local resistance to the AMEC/British Energy proposals was an absolutely pivotal factor in the decision to refuse planning permission.
Much though the decision has been greeted with relief, there is still an ongoing battle to oppose two other large schemes - the Eisgein proposal from multi-millionare Mr Nick Oppenheim, now much amended from his original scheme, and the other large proposal for the Pairc area.
It really has been a "David & Goliath" contest and it is not every day that ordinary people take on and beat large corporations like AMEC and British Energy.
Please take a moment to look at MWT's web site, if you are interested in finding out more: www.mwtlewis.org.uk
When I wrote about the proposed Lewis wind farm (in 2004!), I never dreamt it would take until April 2008 to get a decision - thankfully, a full refusal of this inappropriate scheme put forward by AMEC and British Energy. The members of Moorland without Turbines (MWT) have continued to work tirelessly in defence of their much loved environment and they deserve sincere congratulations for their succesful campaign.
The Scottish Government's Energy Minister, Jim Mather, made the following quotes on why the scheme was rejected:
"I have considered this application very carefully. I have listened to representations from the applicant, taken the views of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Western Isles Council) and considered the 10,924 objections and 98 letters of support."
"The Lewis Wind Farm would have significant adverse impacts on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is designated due to its high value for rare and endangered birds."
There is no doubt that the professional approach of the MWT volunteers in persisting with rallying local resistance to the AMEC/British Energy proposals was an absolutely pivotal factor in the decision to refuse planning permission.
Much though the decision has been greeted with relief, there is still an ongoing battle to oppose two other large schemes - the Eisgein proposal from multi-millionare Mr Nick Oppenheim, now much amended from his original scheme, and the other large proposal for the Pairc area.
It really has been a "David & Goliath" contest and it is not every day that ordinary people take on and beat large corporations like AMEC and British Energy.
Please take a moment to look at MWT's web site, if you are interested in finding out more: www.mwtlewis.org.uk
Friday, 25 April 2008
A bit more on awards
This is the time of the year when the nominations for charity awards are trawled. I have already had a gripe about the charity awards (see UK Charity Awards 2007 and Ripping off Charities with awards?) and that moan got quite a lot of positive feedback, from a wide range of sources, not just on the WLT website, but was picked up on other sites.
Coincidentally with this years Charity Awards, I also got notification of the Annual Whitley Awards for Conservation. Now I am considerably more ambivalent about these awards -- not surprisingly because anything that helps conserve wildlife must, per se, be a good thing. However, even here I do have serious reservations. The awards are given to individuals, on the grounds that charismatic leaders are what really move conservation forward. But is this true? In the short term, it probably is true, but in the long term, I think it is certainly rarely so, except in the case of world shattering leaders. Clearly people like Sir David Attenborough, Sir Peter Scott, Aldo Leopold, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson, Jacques Cousteau -- to name but a few -- had massive and long-lasting impacts. But they certainly didn't need awards to tell them or the rest of the world so. But when I look at the list of the winners of the Whitley Awards, past and present, it is a pretty random selection.
Unfortunately awards will also always tend to operate under Darwinian rules of 'natural selection', in that those with access to publicity media will come to the forefront, those with big egos will float to the top, and those who cultivate a wide network of contacts will gravitate to the centre.
Now I have supported applicants to the Whitley Awards in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future -- there's cash in it for conservation. But giving the prize to individuals simply feeds the all pervasive cult of the celeb'. We have already seen wildlife films debased by gung-ho figures such as Steve Irwin. And the argument is that it brings it to a wider audience - am not particularly anti even those presentations. And last summer a string of 'celebs' were flown around the world for the BBC's Saving Planet Earth series, again, justified on the grounds that it brought the issues to a wider audience. But is this all worth the sell-out? I am not taking a particular stance, but I do have concerns. Inside knowledge is potentially a dangerous thing -- I know many of the persons involved at all levels -- from selections committees to winners. And I know that a few of the winners represent totally unsustainable projects, that are dependent on one or two individuals. But does this negate the benefits of such awards?
Who thinks what?
Coincidentally with this years Charity Awards, I also got notification of the Annual Whitley Awards for Conservation. Now I am considerably more ambivalent about these awards -- not surprisingly because anything that helps conserve wildlife must, per se, be a good thing. However, even here I do have serious reservations. The awards are given to individuals, on the grounds that charismatic leaders are what really move conservation forward. But is this true? In the short term, it probably is true, but in the long term, I think it is certainly rarely so, except in the case of world shattering leaders. Clearly people like Sir David Attenborough, Sir Peter Scott, Aldo Leopold, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson, Jacques Cousteau -- to name but a few -- had massive and long-lasting impacts. But they certainly didn't need awards to tell them or the rest of the world so. But when I look at the list of the winners of the Whitley Awards, past and present, it is a pretty random selection.
Unfortunately awards will also always tend to operate under Darwinian rules of 'natural selection', in that those with access to publicity media will come to the forefront, those with big egos will float to the top, and those who cultivate a wide network of contacts will gravitate to the centre.
Now I have supported applicants to the Whitley Awards in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future -- there's cash in it for conservation. But giving the prize to individuals simply feeds the all pervasive cult of the celeb'. We have already seen wildlife films debased by gung-ho figures such as Steve Irwin. And the argument is that it brings it to a wider audience - am not particularly anti even those presentations. And last summer a string of 'celebs' were flown around the world for the BBC's Saving Planet Earth series, again, justified on the grounds that it brought the issues to a wider audience. But is this all worth the sell-out? I am not taking a particular stance, but I do have concerns. Inside knowledge is potentially a dangerous thing -- I know many of the persons involved at all levels -- from selections committees to winners. And I know that a few of the winners represent totally unsustainable projects, that are dependent on one or two individuals. But does this negate the benefits of such awards?
Who thinks what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
