The Cull is About Killing Badgers, Not Scientific Evidence

 Image by The Green Party

The controversial badger cull trial has failed to meet its targets, so Tory logic says that the trial should be extended by three weeks in order to ensure those targets are met.

Widely condemned, the six week badger cull being piloted in West Somerset and Gloucestershire attempts to discern how effective, humane and safe a cull would be if later implemented across England. Working on a quota, those who have been granted a license to kill the badgers in Somerset are now to be given an additional six weeks to make sure they kill the right amount.

This is a ridiculous move by the Government. The trial cull has already been riddled with failure, uncertainty and inaccuracies and the questions the government want answered have most definitely been unanswered. Only a short amount of time after the cull was initiated, the Government revised their figures on the number of badgers in the area, reducing them. How can any experiment be undertaken if the full facts aren’t known?

Ludicrously, the government is attempting to blame the badgers for their failure with Owen Paterson saying that the badgers ‘moved the goalposts.’ How have they done this? By doing what nature tells them to do: responding to the weather, moving away from danger and breeding. These are hardly unexpected moves from the enemies, with scientists already having warned the Government of these complications if they were to press on with this disgusting policy.

Yet, the Government believes that this is reason enough to extend the cull, ignoring the fact that it is factors like these that help to determine the effectiveness of their trial. The Government are ignoring the difficulties that a cull faces and are only concerned with the number of badgers are killed. It is more than apparent that when this quota has been met, the Government will claim the cull a success, as they already have done despite not reaching the numbers, and will begin rolling out the programme across England on the basis of this ‘evidence.’

In addition, protest groups in the area have noted that not all badgers have been killed humanely (using the Government’s definition), with some being trapped in cages before being shot at point-blank. The cull requires that badgers are killed while freely roaming. This highlights that another of the requirements of this cull has already been failed, in a closely-monitored trial, suggesting that if it were to be reproduced nationally there would be many more instances of badgers killed by inhumane methods. Furthermore, one of the arguments against vaccinating badgers against bTB was how difficult they are to capture, but if the Government is catching badgers in cages to shoot them, then they can catch badgers in cages to vaccinate them.

The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, rightly called out Owen Paterson and Defra for continuously 'changing the rules' and preferring 'a scribbled on the back of an envelope, ignoring the facts approach.'

It can only be concluded that the badger cull is a dangerous move for the Government that goes against the will of the public and the expert recommendations of the scientific community. It does not fulfil their requirements and is simply a token gesture to farmers who are worried about losing a bit of capital. Hence, the Government should begin looking at alternative measures to tackle Bovine Tuberculosis, such as the vaccination, which have helped Scotland to achieve its Bovine TB-free status.

Caroline Lucas – the MP arrested for doing her job

 Photo by No Dash For Gas

Today’s arrest of Caroline Lucas at Balcombe is more than just a display of ideological commitment, but of deep understanding of her role as MP for Brighton Pavilion, and the sole Green Party representative in the House of Commons.

A Member of Parliament (MP), as I’m sure you are aware, is elected to their role to fulfil the responsibility of representing their constituents on matters in and out of parliament. With 650 MPs to represent over 60 million people, this can be an exceptionally difficult feat, with an ideologically diverse community lobbying their ideologically committed representative. Unless you begin to treat ideologically different citizens like separate species, with communists in Zone A and ultra-capitalists in Zone Z, it’s unlikely that any MP will ever to be able to effectively represent their entire constituency. And even if you did adopt this deeply despicable policy, good luck trying to send those who have features from both Zone G and Zone P. It is for this reason that it is an extremely likely occurrence for constituents to write to other MPs to express their views. Unfortunately for them, the law prevents MPs representing non-constituents.

Hence, Caroline Lucas’s job is one of real difficulty. As the sole Green Party representative in the House of Commons, Caroline has faced head-on the task of representing her own interests and her constituency’s interests in parliament whilst having to, essentially, ignore the floods of correspondence she receives from other Green Party members, environmentalists and ideologically aligned people around the country. It is events like today, in Balcombe, that she is able to properly represent those who have contacted her over and over again with their opposition to fracking, Cuadrilla and the Government’s poor attempt at being the ‘Greenest’ ever.

Caroline should serve as an inspiration to all of us and a role model for other members of the House. As an MP who does her job, of representing her constituents, rather than giving in to the party whip, defined by the party donors, she remains one of few who really holds the government to account. The pictures of Caroline being dragged away from the protest by police, whilst doing her job, show her standing with dignity, accepting her fate and believing in her cause.

What is ludicrous is the utter hypocrisy of our political state, where the companies set out to destroy our environment in the name of keeping the lights on, are protected from those who present a risk of “damaging property”. The MP who represents her constituents and other likeminded citizens in an attempt to make society better is arrested while those sitting on the benches in the Houses around her are ignored while they avoid tax and accept bribery. Caroline Lucas’ arrest today is an eye-opener to the backwards nature of policing tactics – the big, greedy and powerful are protected, whilst the small do-gooders of society are punished.

Congratulations to Caroline Lucas, her son, and the many people who have taken part in protests today, standing up for what they believe in and uniting against the Government’s ignorant plans.

Also published on Redbrick

Cameron Demands Complacency on Fracking

Photograph by Push Europe

"Get behind fracking" demands David Cameron in The Telegraph today. Think of the benefits to the economy, he lays on. Ignore the environmental impact, he infers. As anti-fracking protests continue strong in Balcombe, Sussex, the Tory Prime Minister adds yet another controversy to his premiership's legacy, so what substance lies behind his words?

The pro-fracking alliance of Caudrilla and The Conservative Party announce the godsends of the new energy initiative at any hint of disapproval: cheap energy, self-sufficiency and enough jobs to provide for the unemployed and the millions of illegal immigrants popping out of the sewage system. Meant to be a bit of good news, the Nasty Party must be in disarray that their distraction from their widespread attacks has only added fuel to the fire. Rather than prompting street parties and celebrations akin to those on New Year's Day, simply the possibility of fracking has resulted in angry gatherings. 

The potential of fracking is vastly outweighed by its potential to wreck the environment. Carving up the countryside, destroying habitats and contaminating water, it's hardly going to be Beautiful Britain. 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas doesn't exactly suggest a short-scale and isolated project; if David Cameron's partners manage to find shale gas, which is a certainty, there's no doubt that they'll continue to exploring elsewhere in the country. It really should come as no surprise that fracking is being favoured over other options when one of Cameron's advisors, Lord Browne, is the chief executive of Caudrilla. The big black bags of money that the Government are saying will drop into the Treasury or the local public's back pockets are empty promises. If anything is reinvested into the economy, it will be minimal. We only have to look at the 'Big Six' to recognise this; despite their massive profits this year, they still have the cheek to demand more money from their customers. Here is where Cameron's promise of cheaper energy can be called into question.

The latter two promises, self-sufficiency and jobs, also raise eyebrows. Although it may be the case that fracking can provide them both, they are not the sole approaches that can offer, and they are far more the cleanest. Fracking is a dirty process, and presents the highly likely chance of water contamination in the local area. Add the certainty of increased traffic from unclean lorries through the local area, and the noise created during the process, and it the pollution is an abysmal thought. Furthermore, climate change is a real concern in the present day and as we continue to rely on finite and dirty resources to power society, we are forgetting the long-term problems and solely thinking of the short-term benefits. It has been predicted that 60-80% of resources in the ground must not be extracted if we are to avoid any of the catastrophic results of climate change. In contrast, there are various green energies that can be invested in for all the same benefits. Additional money placed towards procuring energy-efficient homes and building technologies to catch renewable energies is far more sustainable and financially viable. The jobs created by implementing a shale-gas service are equally required for a large-scale investment project in sustainable and clean resources, that will not just benefit us, but generations to come and have far more public support than dirty fracking.

The language used by the pro-fracking alliance is misleading and ignorant of alternatives and public opinion. Despite widespread opposition, the technology, which is in its infancy, is being favoured over far more sustainable technologies, which can provide the very same benefits. There is enough shale gas to keep us powered for decades, they say. But there is enough sun, water, wind and heat to keep us powered indefinitely.

Also posted on Redbrick.

It’s Time to Tackle Climate Change

Image by 350.org

Barack Obama yesterday announced a wide-range of reforms to tackle climate change to make himself the most committed president to challenging growing ecological problems. From cutting carbon emissions to developing renewable energy, the demands from the President demonstrate an acceptance that climate change is a real problem that needs to be tackled. However, is his speech simply a demonstration of rhetoric, or is there something to look forward to?

The President of the United States released his plans to the public yesterday via a document and a speech at Georgetown University, and he makes some very promising points. His commitment to reducing carbon pollution in America, following on from mercury and arsenic, is a particularly important step, making the world a safer and more sustainable place for generations beyond us and the wider animal kingdom and their habitats. Furthermore, by doing this, he is committing to developing more renewable energies, which is not only good for the environment, but it also increases employment opportunities and helps to strengthen the economy. Obama positively suggests that this can be carried out alongside keeping the economy growing.

He also addressed the problem of natural disasters that climate change has caused, by announcing plans to protect people from the adverse effects of severe weather. This is perhaps where the UK can learn a lesson. With flooding increasing in recent years, it is certain that we need to tackle the problem at its source, but also increase flood defences, strengthen bridges and protect people’s homes to ensure that people are not made homeless and lose their possessions over and over again.

However, despite Obama’s great intentions, his announcements fall short. His continued commitment to nuclear energy and fracking allow cause for great concern. Both of these energy sources are dangerous to the population, with scientists proving that the latter has been linked to rare earthquakes in the UK. It also relies on a limited amount of shale gas resources and involves the destruction of habitats and the environment in the search and extraction of it. In addition to these concerns, he neglected to make any indication as to his decision on the Keystone tar sands pipeline, only stating that climate implications would be considered before making his decision. He also failed to mention any way of combating those who emit too much carbon and pollution, such as a tax or a penalty charge. Whilst the capitalist system allows for companies to exploit the environment with no consequences, we are unlikely to see any real change from such big industries.

Unfortunately for him and environmentalists, the US political system works in such a way that the President can’t just get what he demands and anything Obama wishes to push through must first go through Congress. So, was his speech yesterday another display of rhetoric, or a real commitment to making sure the progress starts during his administration? After all, we’ve seen his previous promises about Guantanamo Bay and no real action has been made on that front.

Nevertheless, the announcements made by the President push thought on climate change in the right direction; the problem needs to be addressed and tackled before it is too late. It is hopefully a step that his citizens will climb on board with, and one that nations around the world will learn from. To tackle climate change, everyone needs to be in it together.

Stop the Badger Cull

 Image by The Green Party

 

The badger cull pilot project is set to begin in the UK shortly, trialling in the south-western counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset despite many calls for its cancellation. It disheartens me that the hard work of The Green Party, the RSPCA and high-street store, Lush, have been ignored by the Government. What we are seeing now, according to the BBC, is the massacre of 5094 innocent creatures by February next year. 

People will proclaim that the badgers aren’t innocent because they have spread TB to cattle across the country and cost farmers and the nation massive amounts of money, but this is to neglect the fact that these creatures are none the wiser. We, as humans, are lucky to possess the intelligence that we have – we can stop the spread of diseases and viruses using our mental capacities – but, unfortunately, badgers don’t have this same awareness. So, to treat them like they do and hold them as “guilty” of carrying TB and ruining livestock across the country is preposterous. 

It would be outrageous if we were to wipe out the entire population that carry HIV, so why should we do the same to badgers? There are other ways of tackling the problem, and these have been tried and tested. So, they cost more and harder to administer, but should these creatures pay the price for our laziness and ignorance? No. Besides, leading scientists (including the Government’s chief scientist) have argued that there is no real evidence to justify the slaughter, yet the activity goes ahead. 

In October 2012, the House of Commons voted against the proposed cull but this non-binding result from the house was only greeted with a slight postponement by the Government. Acting against the wishes of the House’s members and, indeed, the population, we are seeing an act of downright betrayal from those who are meant to represent us. 

A campaign has been launched by Lush, the high-street cosmetics shop, against the cull, gathering support from customers and passers-by across the country, via organised flash mobs as in the video below. But, we have seen that, time and time again, the Government just does not listen; despite how hard the campaign is fought, and the damning evidence, unless it’s the right people pushing the buttons, it’s hard to get your voice heard. 

Unfortunately, it is already too late to save some, but it is not yet too late to put pressure on the Government. Join me and many others in saying no to the badger cull. Tweet your support using “#stopthecull”, sign the petition, stick up a poster and tell everyone you know. Let’s give those badgers back their lives.

The Not-So-Grand National

Image by Paolo Camera

The Grand National starts today and its controversial history has already been repeated with two horses already having died in the preliminary stages; one from a jump, the other from a suspected heart attack. There have been numerous attempts to make the races safer but these do not seem to be making any difference, with horses continuing to die at each race.

It is a sad state of affairs that people would accept this practice as normal and only express remorse at the death of the horses rather than the initial cruelty. Furthermore, this remorse is short-lived and only shown during the Great National and later races. The races are treated as an experience and a great day out but who treats a death as a great day out? The fact that the horse is a lesser-being, an animal, changes the very treatment and perception that we grant it; this is wholly unfair.

Ludicrously, the RSPCA have argued that the Grand National, or horseracing in general, does not amount to animal cruelty, stating that animal cruelty was when people deliberately hurt animals for their own entertainment or pleasure. But surely this is exactly what the Grand National is? Jockeys beating their horses with sticks for their pursuit of money and fame, whilst others gather to watch, bet and enjoy. And year after year, horses die as a direct result of the broken bones caused by falling at fences they are required to jump. This is a very strange opinion to hear from the RSPCA.

The attempts to make the Grand National safer every year are unsuccessful. Changing the heights and types of fence are a step forward but they are not enough. The real problem in horseracing is the pressure that jockeys are put under to win the race and the difficulty to manoeuvre the horse when all horses are so close together, taking bends and dangerous jumps. It seems unlikely that any changes will be made to stop these horses having to die.

For some reason, cruelty to animals is a frowned upon practice yet the Grand National does not constitute as animal cruelty to many in society. The decrease of a threat of a death is enough to calm some fears but this is not enough to ensure the safety of our animals. Horseracing is a horrible sport that has been normalised into acceptance.

Quit Badgering Me

Image by Fred Dawson

It’s not a good year for farmers. With exceedingly wet conditions (even for British records) crop harvests are at a low and fruit and veg prices are at a high. Beekeepers are reporting a 72% drop in harvested honey and bees are on the life-support equipment that is sugar syrup. So you can understand their anger with the execution of 26,000 cattle after they were infected with Bovine TB from urine and faeces last year.

It’s only common sense that there would be some suggestions on how to tackle the problem then, and of course, a conflict of opinion. We either vaccinate the badger population or cull them. Treatment or murder? Life or death? The Government has opted to provide a pilot project of culling, drawing in cross-spectrum criticism whilst regional Wildlife Trusts will pilot a vaccination scheme. Gloucestershire and Somerset will play host to the 6-week cull trial, whereas Shropshire and Cheshire will pilot vaccinating. I’m certain there’s an obvious better option of the two.

Humanely, there is little defence of a culling scheme, a process which simply involves hunting wild badgers and shooting them indiscriminately. Expected to cost the taxpayer around £100,000 a year, the process is supposed to use less time and resources than a previous vaccination scheme which still resulted in £500m being spent to control the disease over the last 10 years. So, it is plausible that the cull proposal would be massively beneficial to farmers’ livestock and the taxpayer alike.

But is this an argument of quality or quantity? Why do people buy organic foods in the supermarket? Is it hypocritical to be using these ethical food sources whilst supporting the cruel act of a cull of another species?

Of course vaccination has its own costs and complications, but surely that’s something you would sacrifice and admit and then get on with it, for the sake of both cattle and badger? And surely life itself is invaluable – we shouldn’t underestimate that. Besides, experts argue that the cull which actually increase the chances of TB being transferred from badger to cattle, that it will cost more in the long run, it’s inhumane and that there is no concrete proof that the TB is always directly transferred from badger to cattle, rather than cattle to cattle.

I hope that this pilot project proves unsuccessful and ultimately costly, or better, that they decide to cancel it and continue on the vaccination program. After all, Scotland never culled their badger population and they were declared TB free in September 2009, so we can certainly achieve that same result.

Also published on Redbrick