It’s a fatal combination – In the EU Referendum campaign there has been little discussion of climate change or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the massive trade deal that is being negotiated in secret by the EU and the US. Yet these issues, taken together, have the power to wreck our future and destroy our planet, and this will happen if we do not act quickly and decisively. The International Energy Agency warns that if we do not get our emissions under control by 2017, our fossil fuel economy will “lockGin” extremely dangerous global warming. Already we have seen widespread flooding in the UK, but this is nothing compared to the catastrophic climate change that our children may face in 30 or 40 years time.  What does this have to do with TTIP?

Like other free trade agreements, TTIP contains measures which enable multinational companies to sue governments whose policies limit their future profits. How can governments seek to control carbon emissions by regulating, taxing and penalising companies which produce or make heavy use of fossil fuels, if this inevitably triggers thousands of huge compensation claims? (A free trade agreement has been used to challenge a fracking ban in Quebec, and this could happen here if TTIP is agreed).

TTIP will also enable multinational corporations to bid for our public services. Further privatisation will make it harder for governments to promote renewable energy and to expand lowGcarbon transport to get us out of planes and cars. Yet, a British poll in November 2013 found two thirds of “voters of all politics united in their support for nationalisation of energy and rail.” Worse still, TTIP will undermine safety regulations which protect the environment e.g. the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive which aims to reduce the climate impact of high carbon oil and the EU’s regulations on hazardous chemicals, including pesticides which have been found to kill off bees and birds (a ban that has been partially overturned by our government).

Will defeating TTIP stop climate change?

No, already there is so much carbon in the atmosphere that we are bound to have more severe storms and floods, but saying no to the multinationals will help us to avoid catastrophic climate change. The good news is that we can seize this existential threat to transform our failed economic system and build a happier, more equal society.

Is our economy at war with the climate?

Yes! As Naomi Klein states in her book, This Changes Everything (p19), the aim of the corporate globalisation process, which took off in 1988, was always to “lock in a global policy framework that provided maximum freedom to multinational companies to produce their goods as cheaply as possible and sell them with as few regulations as possible – while paying as little in taxes as possible.”

Deregulated capitalism and fossil fuels have enabled multinational corporations to plunder the finite natural resources of the planet, wrecking the environment especially in Third World countries and creating a throwaway culture based on the overGproduction and consumption of cheap goods right across the world. This is not making us happy! The dire consequences of rampant consumerism are revealed in

We cannot change the laws of nature but we can change our economy and we need to start now. To compensate for 20 years of political stalling, developed countries should aim for cuts in emissions of 8 – 10% a year.

How can we protect our children’s future?

  • Consume less and buy things that last (a return to the level of consumption common in the 1970s would make a big difference);
  • Buy less plastic;
  • Make limited use of cars and planes;
  • Eat food that is produced locally;
  • Encourage a sense of community in your local area;
  • Share this infrmationwith other people and protest loudly about TTIP;
  • Watch Naomi Klein’s documentary, This Changes Everything;
  • Take every opportunity to discuss these issues publicly;
  • Support organisations that are campaigning about TTIP and/or climate change (38 Degrees; War on Want; Global Justice Now; Greenpeace; Friends of the Earth);
  • Ask your MP to contact Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, asking her to explain how her department plans to achieve the substantial cut in emissions needed by 2017;
  • Explore possibilities for generating renewable energy in your local area;
  • Demand subsidies for ‘green energy’ and the creation of ‘green energy’ jobs;
  • Remember the advice of Pope Francis:

    “Concern for the environment needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.”


Robbing Peter to pay Paul – Bristol City Council and the Council House Sell Off

It sounds as though Bristol City Council is already selling off council houses in order to raise the money needed to pay the massive discounts that the Government has promised to housing association tenants wanting to buy their homes. If this is true, it should be possible for Labour councillors to obtain tangible evidence of the social injustice that lies at the heart of the Housing and Planning Bill.

How many of the 14,000 applicants on Bristol’s Housing Register know that whenever a housing association home is bought under the Right to Buy, two properties will be taken out of social housing? This Bill will not only diminish their chances of being rehoused but will also crush the hopes and aspirations of future generations who need affordable housing.

In the twelve months to September 2014, homelessness in Bristol increased by 74% according to statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Two years ago there were about 15 homeless families in bed & breakfast in Bristol – now there are about 300 families in bed & breakfast and huge numbers of young people are ‘sofa surfing’ or sleeping on the streets. What will homeless people say if they realise that councils are being forced to sell off the homes that they need so desperately?

The Housing and Planning Bill will make this situation worse. It removes the current obligation on developers to provide, or pay for, units of social housing in order to obtain planning permission for new housing schemes. Housing association tenants with an income of £30,000 or more will either have to buy their house or pay a market rent. And to top it all, the Government is imposing rent reductions on housing associations, which will make it difficult for them to develop new housing, despite a voluntary agreement to replace any homes sold under The Right to Buy.

The Government’s message is clear: we are going to be a nation of home owners (whether we like it or not) and people on housing waiting lists really don’t matter. In these circumstances perhaps the most useful thing that Labour can do is to enable those who are being dispossessed to have their say.

Labour councillors can raise awareness of this social injustice by:

  1. a) asking for details (including the address and price) of any council housing in their ward that BCC has sold off or will sell off instead of renting to a new tenant;
  2. b) asking what is the average number of applicants bidding for council and housing association properties in their ward;
  3. c) being photographed with Housing Register applicants or homeless families outside a property that has been or will be sold off by BCC;
  4. d) publicising this in the local media, on Facebook or in their monthly column, and
  5. e) encouraging people to say what they think about the Government’s approach to housing while the Housing and Planning Bill is still being debated in parliament.

If it is difficult for people in housing need to obtain a deposit bond for a private tenancy from BCC, this could perhaps also be contrasted with the massive discounts (up to £103,999 in London and up to £77,999 elsewhere) soon to be offered to housing association tenants who want to exercise their Right to Buy. How can this be justified as an appropriate and equitable way to spend public money?

What exactly is fair or equitable about how this Government is choosing to spend our money?


A Letter to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the dangers of Fracking

Dear Ms Rudd,

Re: Fracking

I am writing to you on behalf of the Greater Bristol Alliance. We were dismayed to discover that when your Government passed regulations to ensure the safety of fracking you did not ban fracking in areas where water is collected. We would be grateful if you could please explain why your Government apparently concluded that the toxic chemicals used in fracking will not cause irreparable damage to drinking water supplies.

This question is of direct concern to people living in Bristol because PEDL 226 covers the area containing the reservoirs which supply the city’s water. Could you please tell us whether the Government consulted Bristol Water before issuing this licence?

We understand that licence PEDL 226 has been relinquished. Does this mean that a licence for fracking or coal bed methane extraction will not be issued in this area again?

The appalling events in Flint, Michigan, may encourage your Government to rule out the granting of PEDL licences in areas used for the collecting of water. We would appreciate it if you could please let us know how you view this public health issue.



TTIP Good for Multinationals – Not Good for Small Businesses

TTIP (The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is a massive EU-US free trade deal. Scarcely anyone knows about it, but those who do are asking why should anyone believe that TTIP will be good for business and good for our economy? And who exactly is likely to benefit from TTIP?

Could your business compete on these terms?

The main aim of TTIP is to downgrade or remove regulatory ‘barriers’ so that US businesses will be able to access European markets without complying with our regulations and vice versa. This gives a big advantage to US businesses, because their production costs are much lower due to less strict regulations, fewer employment rights and cheap energy. US big business can also make huge economies of scale in order to offer products at much cheaper prices than European small-and-medium-sized businesses (SMEs).

How will your business survive, if TTIP forces you into unfair direct competition with some of the largest multinational corporations in the world?

Good for our economy?

In the UK, SMEs represent over 99% of UK businesses and they provide jobs for 15.6 million people. The Government has acknowledged that small businesses (those with fewer than 50 employees) are “a major source of job creation as well as being critical in driving economic growth through innovation and competition”.

But even the European Commission has calculated that TTIP will lead to the loss of at least 680,000 jobs in the EU. Our exports to other European countries could also be severely damaged by TTIP, with an estimated 40% drop in the value of UK exports to Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland.

Does this sound like justice?

The most controversial part of TTIP is the proposed Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows multinationals to sue governments in private tribunals if their profits are affected by policy changes. ISDS offers no such benefits to small businesses, which could be bankrupted by the average cost of $8 million per case.

How can you protect your business?

Thousands of businesses in Germany have signed an ‘SMEs against TTIP’ petition. Companies such as Lush and Spar have spoken out against TTIP, and Jamie Oliver has expressed concern that TTIP will damage the quality of our food.

The UK campaign Business against TTIP was launched in January by several high-profile businesspeople including the 2015 Entrepreneur of the Year, Titus Sharpe. It calls on the UK government and the European Commission to stop the TTIP negotiations. UK registered businesses and trade associations can obtain information and sign up to this campaign via the website

Across Europe hundreds of local councils and municipalities (35in the UK including Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle) have declared themselves TTIP Free Zones as a way of putting pressure on government to oppose this massive trade deal.