Sodding MPs, We get scientists jumping up and down protesting that there is

a major problem thats getting worse rapidly and still we have

telephone-hygienist." saying we cant do much because it will be bad for buisness.

Tell that to the 1 species becoming extinct every 20 minits.

=================================

To Keith Hill

A Truly terrorfieing report today reminds me that when I spoke to the MEP
Mary Honyball, Her office said "people change things not polititions".

So why do we have politicians???
With that attitude we are not going to survive the coming climate
change.
The people we have in power are Douglass Adams's  telephone-hygienist.
ie useless.
But this is not a comedy. 
It will be the most dangerous environment humans have ever inhabited, and may even be fatal for human culture and
potentially humans ourselfs.

With that in mind, and the fact that you are a powerful politition, how
about actually doing something that will prevent this disaster before
you leave your job. 

=====================================

THE TRUTH IS WE HAVE BUY-OCRACY. WHEREIN WHAT YOU BUY DIRECTS THE WORLDS DIRECTION.

Apart from it being startalingly un- democratic, this has very obvious problems that all corporations and polititions gloss over;  

You then need to have:

1. Very knowlagble public

2. Highly motivated buying public.

3. This highly educated and motivated public has to be making educated decisions (covering agriculture, chemistry, genetics, packaging, CO2 production, air miles, carbon foot prints, child workers, water supplies, local politics and corruption across the world,) for every single item we buy!!!

4. For any of this to work the information has to be redilly available, which it is not.

This is clearly is a bad way to do things. It has disempowered people, made them into consumers, and given vast power to people who's best interests are not our own.

Now they are in competition with each other and squeezing people into becoming nothing more that, consumers, commited by mortgages etc to work for the rest of their lives.

 ==========================================




Yours sincerely,
-------------------

 

Dear Baroness Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Robert Evans, Jean Lambert, John Bowis OBE, Charles Tannock, Gerard Batten, Mary Honeyball and Syed Kamall,

Well folks,
Here we are again, the worlds leading scientists telling us that we are on the edge of disaster and that  if we dont take drastic action we are in deep trouble.
Its no good reduceing emissions by 20% by 2050, its too little too late.

Come on chaps do a bit of research find out how serious the situation is and act appropriatly.
You are powerfull people who, if you organised and tried you could really make a differance.
I know Mary Honeyball's office thinks that "politions dont change things, people do" but that can only happen if we have a population equipt with specialised knowadge, a broad and detailed understanding of the problems. Also they would have to be highly motivated. Sadly we just dont have this.
No amout of argueing can change that.
But what we do have is you lot.

What do you think, can we come up with the goods ?
or do we roll over and let everything fall apart on our watch?

Yours sincerely,


Dear Ashley Lumsden, Jeremy Clyne and June Fewtrell,

Well folks,
Here we are again, the worlds leading scientists telling us that we are on the edge of disaster and that  if we dont take drastic action we are in deep trouble.
I know that its no good reduceing emissions by 20% by 2050, its too little too late.
They also said we only have an 80% chance of surviveing the oncomeing calamity.
Thats scary, very scary.

Thas is a very serious the situation and it is time to act appropriatly.
You are relativly powerfull people who, if you organised and tried you could really make a differance.
I know some think that "politions dont change things, people do" but that can only happen if we have a population equipt with specialised knowadge, a broad and detailed understanding of the problems. Also they would have to be highly motivated.
Sadly we just dont have this.
No amout of argueing can change that.
But what we do have is you lot.

I have loads of ideas but no power, lets do a swop and get some real change befor its too late.

What do you think, can we come up with the goods ?
or do we roll over and let everything fall apart on our watch?

Yours sincerely,


Dear Keith Hill,
Monday 10 December 2007

Dear Keith Hill,
Ok Keith, this is the second really serious report in just a few
months.

It is clear that, not just as countries but as a species, have to
really
change the way we do things or we might not survive the next couple of
hundred years.
Most of our economies certainly wont.
We have about 20 years in which to take substantial action.

This does sound crazy and myself, I find it hard to believe that we are
in this situation, it is a real doomsday scenario.

The weather will become increasingly unstable and more erratic. Sudden
floods, droughts, loss of land to riseing sea levels etc.
Populations are going to be more and more pressed all over the planet
and as the situation gets worse wars are more and more likely.
As for nature, the raft we all float on, scientists say it is very
damaged and there will be massive extinctions, we have lost 900,000 odd
species since 1970.
As you can imagine, if a core species disappears, say Bees, well you
can
see my point. As for bees we have lost 3 of the seven species in this
country in the last few years.

Economically, it is certain that there is going to be massive and far
reaching effects, mostly bad in the short run worse in the longer run.

If we hope to make any of this less bad we really have to make huge
changes and expecting the ordinary person to do that on there own, is
daft. It just is not going to happen. They would need to have highly
specialized knowledge and be highly motivated! It is the way people
are,
we cant pretend otherwise.
They need leadership.
They need to be told what to do and how.
They need to have there government make the appropriate changes for
them.

This means you have a massive moral responsibility not only to acquaint
yourself with the facts but also to start making sensible laws to
protect us all.
I do not think that this will be easy but that is all the more reason
to act decisively.

To my certain knowledge, we have been banging on about this for 40
years and
still we find ourselves in this situation.

You are a powerful person and can make a difference.

As my representative I ask you to take this real situation seriously
Please, we depend on you to make that differance.

Yours sincerely,

All the best

Yours sincerely,

-------------



Dear Keith Hill,
Monday 10 December 2007

Dear Keith Hill,
Ok Keith, this is the second really serious report in just a few
months.

It is clear that, not just as countries but as a species, have to
really
change the way we do things or we might not survive the next couple of
hundred years.
Most of our economies certainly wont.
We have about 20 years in which to take substantial action.

This does sound crazy and myself, I find it hard to believe that we are
in this situation, it is a real doomsday scenario.

The weather will become increasingly unstable and more erratic. Sudden
floods, droughts, loss of land to riseing sea levels etc.
Populations are going to be more and more pressed all over the planet
and as the situation gets worse wars are more and more likely.
As for nature, the raft we all float on, scientists say it is very
damaged and there will be massive extinctions, we have lost 900,000 odd
species since 1970. 
As you can imagine, if a core species disappears, say Bees, well you
can
see my point. As for bees we have lost 3 of the seven species in this
country in the last few years.

Economically, it is certain that there is going to be massive and far
reaching effects, mostly bad in the short run worse in the longer run.

If we hope to make any of this less bad we really have to make huge
changes and expecting the ordinary person to do that on there own, is
daft. It just is not going to happen. They would need to have highly
specialized knowledge and be highly motivated! It is the way people
are,
we cant pretend otherwise.
They need leadership. 
They need to be told what to do and how.
They need to have there government make the appropriate changes for
them.

This means you have a massive moral responsibility not only to acquaint
yourself with the facts but also to start making sensible laws to
protect us all.
I do not think that this will be easy but that is all the more reason
to act decisively.

To my certain knowledge, we have been banging on about this for 40
years and
still we find ourselves in this situation.

You are a powerful person and can make a difference.

As my representative I ask you to take this real situation seriously 
Please, we depend on you to make that differance.

Yours sincerely,

All the best

Yours sincerely,

 

___________________________________________________



 

 

 

 

Dear Baroness Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Robert Evans, Jean Lambert, John Bowis OBE, Charles Tannock, Gerard Batten, Mary Honeyball and Syed Kamall,

Well folks, 
Here we are again, the worlds leading scientists telling us that we are on the edge of disaster and that  if we dont take drastic action we are in deep trouble.
Its no good reduceing emissions by 20% by 2050, its too little too late.

Come on chaps do a bit of research find out how serious the situation is and act appropriatly.
You are powerfull people who, if you organised and tried you could really make a differance.
I know Mary Honeyball's office thinks that "politions dont change things, people do" but that can only happen if we have to have a population equipt with specialised knowage, They would have to have a broad and detailed understanding of the problems. Also they would have to be highly motivated. Sadly we just dont have this.
No amout of argueing can change that.
But what we do have is you lot.

What do you think, can we come up with the goods ? 
or do we roll over and let everything fall apart on our watch?

Yours sincerely,

==========================================

Dear Keith Hill,


The world is tettering on a truley desasterous financial desaster. The experts are saying that the reason is effectivly "castles built on sand"
The free market is not a secure animal, being driven by greed and avarice and short term gain, it is capricious and dangerous. (fortunatly, under the present circumstances, I dont need to qualifie that with the nationalising of banks, bailing out of countrys and companies, and iceland going bankrupt, Its obvious. Incedently I really object to bailing out the free market, we either have it or dont.) The problems are endemic and not easy to see.



Couple this with the staggering ecological disaster that is just beginning to happen, It causes us to question how we do things.

Because we cant see the woods for the trees, we are not asking the right questions and therefore not getting helpful answers.


If I started to say "I believe" that would be to undermine the evidance surrounding us.
So It is time to realy change the way we do things because the way we are doing it now is going go wrong with vast negative consequences.

You said to me " Its very hard to persuade a sceptical public" but that is not a good enough reason to do nothing or far to little now.



We must not continue useing methods that screw up.

Capitalism is an extrordinary thing and given an infinate world would be hard to find faults, sadly, that is not where we find ourselves.

Money is a token, it is the key method of lubricating our societys, but it is not real. Nothing actualy changed over the last few weeks, it was just numbers on screens. There was no money befor and no money after, the only thing that changed was some peoples view of it. Yet it has upset our whole world economy.


Regardless of the fact that one cannot function in this society without banks, this is enough to suggest that governments should have control over banks.

Consumerism also seems to be an ideal world. Arguably it has delivered greater health, more security and greater comfort than any previous system, But the dangers here are even more serious. It works only when there are more people tommorow than yesterday, when more people spend more money on more goods that they did before. It supposes that the planet is infinate.

It it not.
As a result its dogma is destroying the very planet that gives us life.

I like my world, I dont want it to change, I enjoy my goods and flying around the world and all the luzuries of life in the 21st century But there is no question that we need, as matter of urgancey, to reconsider the ways in which we do things.



It is clear that we need to have very serious measures concerning how we treat our environments both real and token.

In view of the seriousness of the situation outlined above and as my representative, I urge you to start looking into other, safe and sustainable ways of doing things.


After all the captain of a ship does would be arrested if he said "I saw the iceburg long before we hit it and wanted to change direction but Its very hard to persuade a sceptical public of the danger" and then wait for the passengers to say "Oh look, an iceburg" 

So I want to know,



1. What options are open to us?


2. What do you propose to do?


3. Can human society survive the next few hundred years?






Yours sincerely,



Sensible Politics

============================================================================================

 

 

Monday 9 February 2009
 
Dear Keith Hill,
 
Re: Ecology
 
Hi Keith, Well I don't want to bore you chaps at this time but did you
notice Australia  burning?
 
I know I've said it before but now we can see it happening; 
 
We need to do a lot more and a lot faster.
 
Its that simple.
 
The penalty's of any hold back are terrifieing and massively
destructive, just look at Australia burn. 
 
There simply is no more important subject. 
 
Yours sincerely,
 

 
Saturday 1 November 2008
 
Dear Keith Hill,
 
I know you very rarely answer thise letter and I do wonder if ecology
is even on your adgender btu you are my representative in parliment and
it would be nice to see some responsible action being taken.
 
We have just seen the near gevastation of a deven town due to a "freak"
hail storm.
This is due to climate change and will become more and more frequent.
It gives us a taste of how dangerous and uncontrolable the weather is
becoming.
We cannot cope with this kind of violent weather for many reasons;
formost, it will destroy crops and thus our food sources.
Also minor things like:
Insurance will have to stop paying for climate related claims.
Infrastructure will be distroyed, (Rail, emergency services wont be
able to cope, nmot to mention the floodsinevatable increse in floods
etc etc etc.
 
Because this effects us all  (we all have children) we need to react
very fast and strongly to avert an overwhelming set of problems if we
intend to survive the next 100 years.
Firstly we need to have a carbon negative economy now not a reduction
some long time in the future.
 
It would be nice to have our politions do this rather that to little
too late.
 
So what are we doing ?
Is it enough?
 
Yours sincerely,



===================

Saturday 1 November 2008
 
Dear June Fewtrell, Jeremy Clyne and Ashley Lumsden,
 
Hello folks
This is a plea to you all to really get serious about the dire
situation our ecology is getting into.
Every day we are confronted by true enormas problems most of which seem
insurmountable. They are not, but very soon will be.
I wont list the problems or the many solutions but I have an idea:-
 
Some years ago I was taken to what was then the largest wind turbine in
the uk ( somewhere in the south /south west) It was paid for
(£1,000,000.00) and run by the local council and it provided 50% of the
needed electricity.
It was expectet to run for 25 years.
it had paid for itself in the first 5 years.
It is  local and therefore does not have the problem of power loss
sending electricity over great distances.
And it can either make a proffit for the council or gives free power to
the locals.
 
Well that is something that Lambeth could and should do.
I think people in lambeth could be share holders and we can all
beniffit from it.
 
So how about it?
 
Yours sincerely,
 

================


Saturday 1 November 2008
 
Dear Keith Hill,
 
I know you very rarely answer thise letter and I do wonder if ecology
is even on your adgender btu you are my representative in parliment and
it would be nice to see some responsible action being taken.
 
We have just seen the near devastation of a devon town due to a "freak"
hail storm.
This is due to climate change and will become more and more frequent.
It gives us a taste of how dangerous and uncontrolable the weather is
becoming.
We cannot cope with this kind of violent weather for many reasons;
formost, it will destroy crops and thus our food sources.
Also minor things like:
Insurance will have to stop paying for climate related claims.
Infrastructure will be distroyed, Rail, emergency services wont be
able to cope, not to mention the inevatable increse in floods
the list as you should know, goes on and on.
 
Because this effects us all (we all have children) we need to react
very fast and strongly to avert an overwhelming set of problems if we
intend to survive the next 100 years.
Firstly we need to have a carbon negative economy now not a reduction
some long time in the future.
 
It would be nice to have our politions do this rather than to little
too late.
 
You said "It is difficult to persuade a sceptctal public". I dont
recall a captain asking the passengers what the course should be and
similarly you should be leading the way not following.
 
So. What are we doing ?
Is it enough?
 
Yours sincerely,
 =========================



Saturday 1 November 2008
 
Dear Mary Honeyball, Robert Evans, Claude Moraes, Baroness Sarah
Ludford, Jean Lambert, Gerard Batten, Syed Kamall, Charles Tannock and
John Bowis OBE,
 
We have just seen the near gevastation of a deven town due to a "freak"
hail storm.
This is due to climate change and will become more and more frequent.
It gives us a taste of how dangerous and uncontrolable the weather is
becoming.
We cannot cope with this kind of violent weather for many reasons;
formost, it will destroy crops and thus our food sources.
Also minor things like:
Insurance will have to stop paying for climate related claims.
Infrastructure will be distroyed, (Rail, emergency services wont be
able to cope, nmot to mention the floodsinevatable increse in floods
etc etc etc.
 
Because this effects us all  (we all have children) we need to react
very fast and strongly to avert an overwhelming set of problems if we
intend to survive the next 100 years.
Firstly we need to have a carbon negative economy now not a reduction
some long time in the future.
 
It would be nice to have our politions do this rather that to little
too late.
 
So what are we doing ?
Is it enough?
 
Yours sincerely,
 
====================================



Dear 
 
Yes, my mother is Welsh, hence my Christian name. 
 
The Mayor and GLA do have some remit on environmental matters within London. I have appointed to membership of the Environment Committee at the GLA and will be pushing for more environmentally friendly approaches to issues while I am a member of it. The Chairman of the committee is Darren Johnson, who is a member of the Green Party and is well known for his passion for environmental policies. 
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Cllr Gareth Bacon AM 
London Assembly 
City Hall 
The Queen's Walk 
London 
SE1 2AA 
DDI: 0207 983 5784 
 
________________________________
 
From: 
Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 8:40 AM
To: Gareth Bacon
Subject: RE: Letter from your constituent Leon Maurice-Jones
 
 
 
 
Dear Gareth
(Is that a Welsh name?)
Thank you very much.
I, however, suspect that you could do something usefull, Maybe starting with public transport in London and getting freight off the roads and onto rail?
What do you think.
Yours

 
 
 
 
----------------------------------------
> Subject: RE: Letter from your constituent 
> 
> Your passion is impressive, but is aimed at the wrong people. I am a member of the Greater London Assembly. Unfortunately you do not seem to understand what the function of the GLA is - executive power in London resides with the Mayor of London, but only in certain defined areas, and the function of the GLA is essentially to scrutinise the activity of the Mayor.
> 
> What you are asking for requires legislation, which can only be carried out by Parliament at the behest of government. I am a member neither of Parliament nor of the government - you should re-direct your comments to people who are.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Cllr Gareth Bacon AM
> London Assembly
> City Hall
> The Queen's Walk
> London
> SE1 2AA
> DDI: 0207 983 5784
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: sensible Politics
> Sent: Tue 5/20/2008 11:42 PM
> To: Gareth Bacon
> Subject: RE: Letter from your constituent 
>
>
>
>
> Dear Gareth
> Thank you for your speedy reply.
>
> OK, I accept your words.
> Now all you have to do is prove it and act as if you understand the seriousness of our situation.
>
> Unfortunatly I did notice that you have not dealt with any of the very serious concerns outlined but meerley sort to defend yourself, so not a good start.
>
> I AM NOT BEING RUDE BUT JUST POINTING OUT HOW BAD THINGS ALREADY ARE.
>
> Please answer these Questions.
> Exactly what are you doing that will reverse the destuctive effects of our culture?
> How effective will those actions be?
> How long befor we see any improvement?
> when will you understand the seriousness of the situation and forinstance make public transport so good that private vehicals are un-viable?
> Or make Petrol so expencive that it wont be used?
> Maby charge inefficient vehicals a lot more for their fuel.
> Maybe force frieght off the roads and onto the rail? See Eddy Stobart.
> Or perhaps make it law that every building must produce its own power?
> Or give insulation, free of charge, to every house in London?
> Or make it Illegal to have shop doors open and have fan heaters blasting hot air into the atmosphere?
> I doubt that you will even attempt it.
>
> Honistly I dont think you have any idea of how serious the situation is but I am willing to be persuaded. I wish it wasnt true but I dont believe you (genericaly) have the gumption to act positivly in our situation.
>
> Tell the public the truth, We have 100 to 150 years at best befor human culture cannot continue, (the end of the world as we know it)
> Long befor that we will be at each others throtes.
> Massive populations will be moveing accross the planet in search of security and food. It is not difficult to see that war will be breaking out all over the place and it will be about food and safety.
> As we destroy the ecology we will also loose food producing land. As the ecology breaks down and people get more and more desperate , governments will loose control and the army's will be brought in but by then it will be out of control, damage limitation will be the only option. But by then damage limitation will do nothing but try to protect the very wealthy from the desperate.
>
> If you dont believe me just look in a few books or talk to the relavent scientists.
>
> Do you think you are up to the job which you must have struggled to attain?
> Or are you just another self serving politition who is too week to be a states man?
>
> You can actualy stand up and make a difference.
>
> If you are actualy doing some good then you will have my total support.
> I will do anything in my power to assist you.
> All those with any understanding of the serious situation we face dont want any more prevarication so dont pretned, I wont be impressed nor fooled.
>
> The time has long passed when we can play games.
>
> Serious action is needed, not clever and slick politics.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------

>>
>> Dear sensible Politics,
>>
>> Many thanks for your email, the contents of which are duly noted.
>>
>> Contrary to your assertion, I have not "been in power for years", I have been a member of the London Assembly for 17 days.
>>
>> However, please be assured that I have a keen interest in environmental matters, and have no intention of destroying the planet for money.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>>
>> Cllr Gareth Bacon AM
>> London Assembly
>> City Hall
>> The Queen's Walk
>> London
>> SE1 2AA
>> DDI: 0207 983 5784
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message was also sent to: Mike Tuffrey AM, Richard Barnbrook AM,
>> Dee Doocey AM, Jenny Jones AM, Nicky Gavron AM, Victoria Borwick AM,
>> Darren Johnson AM, Andrew Boff AM, Caroline Pidgeon AM, Murad Qureshi
>> AM
>>
>>==================================================================
>>
>>                                              Tuesday 20 May 2008
>>
>> Dear Murad Qureshi, Caroline Pidgeon, Richard Barnbrook, Victoria
>> Borwick, Gareth Bacon, Dee Doocey, Andrew Boff, Jenny Jones, Darren
>> Johnson, Nicky Gavron and Mike Tuffrey,
>>
>> Well done
>> We have now killed 1 third of all the species on planet earth.
>> And just because we cant get to grips with our own concept; that of
>> money.
>> Money will not feed us nor keep us warm and safe.
>> Only a working planet earth can do that.
>> Whats the matter with you?
>> Destroying it because it makes fiscal sense is suicide.
>>
>> As far as we know there is no life enywhere in the universe except here
>> on Earth and we are destroying it for money. A concept unique to
>> humans, and one we clearly cannot cope with.
>>
>> You have been in power for years and done nothing but destroy our only
>> safety.
>> For millions of years things have lived and evolved in relative safety
>> and
>> stability. Now we come along and destroy one third of all life within
>> 50 years and try to make nature justify itself in terms of  cash.
>> It cant, so we destroy it.
>> Idiot.
>>
>> If your child is in trouble you would jump to it and do something
>> positive to help but everything now is in trouble and life and human
>> culture, as we know it, is about to disapere and we do nothing because
>> it might cost to much. Stupid.
>> Nature cannot justify itself in terms of humans economics.
>> Do you really believe cash will save humanity?
>>
>> Consider this, it has destroyed one third of life on this planet and
>> is changing the ecology so destructively that we cannot survive.
>> You are supposed to be a statesmen and women, and your job is to help
>> lead us IN SAFETY into our future.
>> Instead you are taking us and most of the rest of life on earth to our
>> ultimate destruction.
>> Do something good in your life. Stand up and be responsible
>> instead of a pathetic , short sighted, destructive fool.
>> Good economics, as it is proclaimed, will not keep your children safe.
>>
>> Do you think your children will look kindly
>> upon those that feathered their own nests at the expense of most life
>> on earth? That is if they survive.
>>
>> Have you looked at what is happening and what will happen as a result?
>> Where do you think people will live and what will people eat when the
>> sea levels rise and the farming land is lost or becomes UN-viable?
>> Our populations object to a few Polish and Rumanians; what will happen
>> when millions of people start to flee their flooded or parched lands to
>> get to a safe place? I can see uncontrollable war and fragmentation.
>> It will be chaos and you, unbelievably,  are supposed to be in charge.
>> Think it through, do some basic reading.
>> there are thousands of very serious problems that will gang up and ,
>> when it is all out of control, you will not be able to act at all. Take
>> the opportunity to save the two thirds of life left on Earth and thus
>> save your own arses (and ours).
>> Justify you position by acting responsibly. Not for me, but for all
>> life. Especially think of your own children, how will you explain your
>> inactivity when they struggle just to stay alive? Which just wont be
>> possible if you don't start to take the ecology seriously.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,

========================================================================

 

Dear
 
Thank you for your recent letter concerning European Union policy on
biofuels and your concerns about the environmental sustainability, and
social consequences of this alternative fuel source.
 
 
 
As part of our work to tackle climate change, MEPs are looking very
seriously at the development of biofuels and their potential for
reducing CO2 emissions. The transport sector is responsible for about
21% of the EU's harmful greenhouse gas emissions and the development of
biofuels as a substitute for traditional petrol and diesel could make an
important contribution to tackle this problem.
 
 
 
However, I am equally well aware of the debate about other potential
impacts of biofuels, such as on food prices and the environment.  We
need to do a lot more work to ensure that any alternative energy sources
are environmentally sustainable.    
 
 
 
The Thomsen Report, that was adopted by the European Parliament in
September 2007, dealt with this matter in a measured and practical way,
and paragraph 47 of the report specifically calls on the Commission to
"develop a mandatory, comprehensive certification scheme" that would be
applicable to imported and EU grown biofuels.  
 
 
 
The Report also states that any certification scheme must ensure that
biofuels "do not cause, directly or indirectly, a loss in biodiversity
and water resources, any reduction in carbon stocks through land use
change or social problems such as rising food prices and the
displacement of people".  
 
 
 
In response to this report the Commission published proposals in
January, which set out a greenhouse gas emission saving of at least 35%
compared to conventional fuels, and the sustainability criteria for
growing biofuels in the EU, and outside the EU.  
 
 
 
Labour MEPs will be pushing for these proposals to be considerably
strengthened, with specific attention to the issues that you raise in
your e-mail.  The UK's domestic policy already has sustainability
criteria applied that are being currently reviewed in light of the
emerging academic studies that have raised concerns about the
sustainability of biofuels.   
 
 
 
The UK Government will also be working with other Member States to bring
forward more stringent and far-reaching criteria to ensure that biofuels
do make significant greenhouse gas savings. 
 
 
 
We should take note of the warnings that have been given on biofuels and
move forward to address the issues in a practical way, with sensible
targets that take account of the science, and we will be pushing for
this in the forthcoming Renewable Energy Directive. 
 
 
 
Once again thank you for your correspondence on this issue.  Labour MEPs
will continue to follow this issue closely and work towards a sufficient
and workable certification system. 
 
 
 
I hope this is helpful.
 
Claude Moraes MEP 
Labour MEP for London
 
Tel: 00 32 2 284 55 53
Fax: 00 32 2 284 95 53
 
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 06 May 2008 15:53
To: MORAES Claude
Subject: RE: EU biofuel target
 
 
Thank you for your reply.
 Re: "In response to this report the Commission published proposals in
January, which set out a greenhouse gas emission saving of at least 35%
compared to conventional fuels, and the sustainability criteria for
growing biofuels in the EU, and outside the EU."
 
That , though interesting, is not the point I wanted to address, which
is.
 
With increasing populations and their increasing use of Bio Fuels  
we will have to plough up all the available land and still need more.
Ie its a short term answer and not a very good one at that.
 
It also has an unmeasureable but very powerful negative consequence
which is that there will be no space for nature to exist naturaly. That
means speacies extinktion, and that can become extreamly dangerous.
Not such obvious ways, we are presently looking at the possibility of
Bee extinktion. We have lost 3 of the 7 species in the UK (Greenpeace). 
Think about it, 70/80% of pollination is done by the Bees. It would be
impossible to acchieve it by any other way. We could not make it
economicaly possible to pollinate by hand each and every food producing
plant.
It would be (and it might actualy become) a disaster.
 
There is plenty of light and wind and wave.
Our problem is how to store and move the energy. That is where you
energies should be focused.
 
Yours

 
 
 
----------------------------------------
> Subject: RE: EU biofuel target
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 14:54:23 +0200
> From: claude.moraes@europarl.europa.eu
>  
> Dear 
> 
> Thank you for your recent letter concerning European Union policy on
> biofuels and your concerns about the environmental sustainability, and
> social consequences of this alternative fuel source.
> 
>  
> 
> As part of our work to tackle climate change, MEPs are looking very
> seriously at the development of biofuels and their potential for
> reducing CO2 emissions. The transport sector is responsible for about
> 21% of the EU's harmful greenhouse gas emissions and the development
of
> biofuels as a substitute for traditional petrol and diesel could make
an
> important contribution to tackle this problem.
> 
>  
> 
> However, I am equally well aware of the debate about other potential
> impacts of biofuels, such as on food prices and the environment.  We
> need to do a lot more work to ensure that any alternative energy
sources
> are environmentally sustainable.    
> 
>  
> 
> The Thomsen Report, that was adopted by the European Parliament in
> September 2007, dealt with this matter in a measured and practical
way,
> and paragraph 47 of the report specifically calls on the Commission to
> "develop a mandatory, comprehensive certification scheme" that would
be
> applicable to imported and EU grown biofuels.  
> 
>  
> 
> The Report also states that any certification scheme must ensure that
> biofuels "do not cause, directly or indirectly, a loss in biodiversity
> and water resources, any reduction in carbon stocks through land use
> change or social problems such as rising food prices and the
> displacement of people".  
> 
>  
> 
> In response to this report the Commission published proposals in
> January, which set out a greenhouse gas emission saving of at least
35%
> compared to conventional fuels, and the sustainability criteria for
> growing biofuels in the EU, and outside the EU.  
> 
>  
> 
> Labour MEPs will be pushing for these proposals to be considerably
> strengthened, with specific attention to the issues that you raise in
> your e-mail.  The UK's domestic policy already has sustainability
> criteria applied that are being currently reviewed in light of the
> emerging academic studies that have raised concerns about the
> sustainability of biofuels.   
> 
>  
> 
> The UK Government will also be working with other Member States to
bring
> forward more stringent and far-reaching criteria to ensure that
biofuels
> do make significant greenhouse gas savings. 
> 
>  
> 
> We should take note of the warnings that have been given on biofuels
and
> move forward to address the issues in a practical way, with sensible
> targets that take account of the science, and we will be pushing for
> this in the forthcoming Renewable Energy Directive. 
> 
>  
> 
> Once again thank you for your correspondence on this issue.  Labour
MEPs
> will continue to follow this issue closely and work towards a
sufficient
> and workable certification system. 
> 
>  
> 
> I hope this is helpful.
> 
>  
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Claude Moraes MEP 
> 
> Claude Moraes MEP 
> Labour MEP for London
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 April 2008 01:27
> To: MORAES Claude
> Subject: EU biofuel target
> 
> 
> Dear MEP,
>  
> I am writing to ask you to vote against increased EU biofuel targets
as
> proposed by the European Commission in the draft Directive on
renewable
> energy. 
> 
> You may be aware of the overwhelming evidence published over the last
> few months that the large scale production of biofuels will 
> - have devastating effects on the world's most important habitats
> - have disastrous consequences for the poorest people and 
> - do little to tackle climate change.  
> 
> Despite this evidence the European Commission has held on to its
> proposal to include a 10% target for biofuels by 2020.
> 
> The Commission proposes to avoid negative impacts from biofuels
through
> the introduction of sustainability criteria.
> 
> In reality sustainability criteria fail to solve problems like the
> pressure biofuel crops exert on other agricultural land uses, pushing
> them into rainforests and other habitats (a problem known as leakage).
> And there are not even attempts to address social issues like land
> rights conflicts and the effects on the world's food prices. 
> 
> If you feel you cannot vote against the target I would like to hear
from
> you how you propose the problems of leakage and the social impacts of
> biofuels will be tackled.
>  
> You can contact me by email or at the following address:
>  
> 
> Yours sincerely, 
> 
> 27 Apr 2008
> 

===================================================================

 

Monday 17 March 2008
 
Dear Keith Hill,
I read that there are two different carbon accounting systems, Thats
very convenient.
This kind of "being economic with the truth" wont wash.
 
 There is "insufficient consistency and coordination" in the
government's approach, the NAO said.
 
Phil Woolas, said in a Commons written answer: "UK greenhouse gas
emissions have fallen by 16.4% since 1990. We remain on course to
nearly double our Kyoto Protocol target over the 2008-12 period."
Actualy the real figures show us doubleing our output when you add the
aviation, shipping and carbon tradeing scheems that you dont have to ad
now... Do you think it will just go away?
The CO2 wont magicaly disapear just because you dont ad it on to a
list, its still there you know.
 
This kind of brinksmanship is really scurolous. Especialy considering
the Stakes (our world).
Please , your grown men . Stop acting like naughty little boys.
 
Yours sincerely,

=================================================================

 

 

Tuesday 11 March 2008
 
Dear Geoff Pope, Nicky Gavron, Jenny Jones, Peter Hulme Cross, Mike
Tuffrey, Dee Doocey, Sally Hamwee, Graham Tope, Damian Hockney, Darren
Johnson and Murad Qureshi,
I dispair.
Again we have really very serious ecological information telling us
that we face very dangerous times if we don't fundamentally change the
way we do things. 
But you seem to think we are doing enough.
If everything bad stopped today we would still face an uncertain
future. (think how long it takes a supertanker to stop.)
So anything less than a carbon negative economy is just not going to be
enough to help in time.
Then our economy and its ability to keep all our population alive and
fed will fail and then there will be uncontrollable chaos. A sad fate
for the human experiment.
It is dangerously late now so when you finally get around to dealing
with the problem, it will be too late. Sadly indolence and
 
------Original Message Truncated------
 
Michael Tuffrey
Liberal Democrat Assembly Member
City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London SE1 2A

=================================================================


Dear Leon,
 
I will forward your email to Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate
for London Mayor who is a keen cyclist and is determined to improve
safety for cyclists in London.
 
Regards,
 
Syed
 
SYED KAMALL
Conservative MEP for London
www.syedkamall.com
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurice-Jones [mailto:lmjhoney@hotmail.com] 
Sent: 19 February 2008 16:11
To: KAMALL Syed
Subject: Letter from your constituent Leon Maurice-Jones
 
 
 
This message was also sent to: Mary Honeyball MEP, Gerard Batten MEP,
Claude Moraes MEP, Jean Lambert MEP, John Bowis OBE MEP, Baroness Sarah
Ludford MEP, Robert Evans MEP, Charles Tannock MEP
 
                                             Tuesday 19 February 2008
 
Hello all
This is a plea for cycle only routes
 
While I was cycling yesterday I narrowly avoided being hit by a lorry
who did not see me. 
I have cycled in London for 40 years  and as ever I am dissapointed.
The cyclist's accident and injury rates have never been higher and
continue to rise. 
This last year we have lost one of our Olympic cyclists under the
wheels of the wasteful grunt which is the Lorry.
I myself have noticed it myself.
Recently I have been
 *knocked down 4 times, 
 *run off the road numerous occasions and 
 *3 times a flat-back lorry has overtaken me on a left hand corner and
the rear wheels have mounted the curb behind me! (I was very lucky
because the curb dropped down allowing me to mount the pavement thus
not getting killed and becoming another statistic not heeded by
politicians.)
Drivers regularly pull out forcing you into oncoming traffic!
Cars are more powerful and move very much faster than ever accident
injurys get worse for cyclists, or as my friend, who is a nurse, calls
them organ donors.
 
Would you let your child ride a bicycle in London?  no, me neither. 
But thats crazy when cycling is part of the "CO2 reduction" that we
need to implement over the next few years.
 
The point is that roads are very dangerous places for cyclists. and a
white line never stopped a cyclist getting killed.
However the absence of cars and lorries in cycle lanes guarantees that
no harm will come to the vulnerable and friendly cyclist.
 
Virtually every place I have been to in Europe has a better approach to
cyclists.
Our solution is a fiasco and an laughably inefficient one at that.
 
CYCLE ONLY LANES divided by a kerb stone, anything less is just not
trying.
What the Londoners (and the planet) need is more cyclists not cars, 
and what will encourage our local friendly cyclists is CYCLE ONLY LANES
that cars cannot enter or park in, divided by a kerb stone or on an
entirely separate road, not miles of white lines.
 
Which brings up another need; We need to have two (at least two) Cycle
Only Roads, one running north/south and one running east west right
through London.
 
There are so many good reasons to do this, Obesity, Health, Economy,
Ecology, MRT, public transport, speed, pollution, Job Creation and the
Governments commitment to CO2 reduction, to name just a few.
 
We have the worlds 4th largest economy yet we cant make it safe for
cyclists.
 
A SOLUTION
you can help to create a system of cycle only lanes that will see
hundreds of thousands of journeys done by cyclists that are presently
done in cars because people are too afraid of getting killed on the
crazy roads we have.
 
Yours sincerely,

 ===================================================================

 

Monday 10 December 2007
 
Dear Baroness Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Robert Evans, Jean Lambert,
John Bowis OBE, Charles Tannock, Gerard Batten, Mary Honeyball and Syed
Kamall,
 
Well folks, 
Here we are again, the worlds leading scientists telling us that we are
on the edge of disaster and that  if we dont take drastic action we are
in deep trouble.
Its no good reduceing emissions by 20% by 2050, its too little too
late.
 
Come on chaps do a bit of research find out how serious the situation
is and act appropriatly.
You are powerfull people who, if you organised and tried you could
really make a differance.
I know Mary Honeyball's office thinks that "politions dont change
things, people do" but that can only happen if we have a population
equipt with specialised knowadge, a broad and detailed understanding of
the problems. Also they would have to be highly motivated. Sadly we
just dont have this.
No amout of argueing can change that.
But what we do have is you lot.
 
What do you think, can we come up with the goods ? 
or do we roll over and let everything fall apart on our watch?
 
Yours sincerely,
Thanks for listening
 
========================================================



Actualy I can challenge its scope and ambition. In view of the amout of work and the changes needed, this is barely scratching the surface.
He does not "recognise the problem" or there would be a very diferent response.
If this is the level of action concieved of as being suficiant, then we are in serious trouble. 
sincearly 

 
----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:54:20 +0000
> ou email alert
> From: beta@theyworkforyou.com
> 
> 
> Spoken by Keith Hill : 2 Commons debates
> ========================================
> 
> Orders of the Day: Planning Bill (10 Dec 2007)
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-12-10a.25.1&s=speaker%3A10279#g46.2
> Keith Hill: Whatever else one might say about the Bill, no one can
> challenge its scope and ambition. It ranges, in its potential
> application, from airport terminals to conservatories, from nuclear
> power stations and wind farms to microgenerators. To that extent, it
> reflects the scope of the White Paper on which it is based, which
> ranged even more explicitly from global issues of climate change to
> the...
> 
> Orders of the Day: Planning Bill (10 Dec 2007)
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-12-10a.25.1&s=speaker%3A10279#g49.1
> Keith Hill: I certainly recognise the problem that the hon. Gentleman
> identifies. Indeed, I dealt with it extensively when I was Planning
> Minister. We established a joint working party between Universities UK
> and the Local Government Association two or three years ago precisely
> to examine the way in which the issue could be managed. It is managed
> successfully in some university towns, but less so in...
> 
> To cancel your alert for items spoken by Keith Hill, please use:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/D/26560-8zM6LLbf9oh7R1XV
> 

=================================================================

 

 

 

These may not be in the right order, but you get the message.

 

Dear Mary Honeyball

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

The situation we face is very serious.

 

Indeed it makes me feel that we, firstly as a culture and secondly as a species, have little chance of survival.

 

I again noticed that you have not addressed any of the very serious problems I raised.

 

If we were at war we would change everything even our economy to survive.

 

I think you Know of the way we changed virtually everything during the 2nd world war, rationing, land girls, children being sent out of towns, people being pulled out of normal work to work on nationally important things vital to our survival.

 

Since we started this conversation 3 species an hour have become extinct.

 

So we have been communicating for 3 days and that means 216 species have disappeared during that time.

 

There is a limited supply and most are regarded as "keystone " species. IE if they disappear a whole collection of creatures also go.

 

What will we do when the cod vanish, the gulf stream moves, when the sea level rises 25 foot? etc etc

 

I don’t think it will be safe for any of us.

 

Long befor we run out of species there will be a horrendous collapse with terrible consequences.

 

The thing is we don’t have very long; not to put things right but just to limit the damage.

 

I put the ecology above all else and sadly, it is true, any other issues are secondary because without a healthy planet there is no human culture.

 

I don’t like it and there are so many important things to deal with (and fun things ) but without a safe place to live (the world) nothing and no one will have the luxury of things like human rights.

 

Now that you raised the subject, Is it not a primary human right to live a safe and comfortable life?

 

We are not going to be able to hand that to our children? I doubt it.

 

Your

 

SP

 

 

 

 

 

>Thank you for your apology.

 

>

 

>I asked you

 

>

 

>"I wonder what your CV would show you have done?"

 

>

 

>You have not answered this question.

 

>

 

>Ms. Honeyball is a member of a political party which is in government.

 

>That government is acknowledged as being one of the world leaders on the

 

>Issues you raise. She is also a member of several Environmental campaigns

 

>groups. She also works on many other issues such as the trafficking of

 

>women, which you seem to suggest she should stop working on so that she can

 

>focus her energies on one single issue. She frequently goes out in her own

 

>time at weekends and in the evenings and knocks on people's doors,

 

>delivers leaflets and campaigns on the issues you raise.

 

>

 

>Now can you kindly please tell me what you have done on these issues over

 

>the last few years? What campaigning have you done? Which groups are you a

 

>member of? What positions do you hold? What have you done in your

 

>community?


 

I have not gotten myself into a position of great responsibility, unlike you. (well done you)

 

I have not struggled up the "greasy pole" and those are not my talents.

 

Haveing said that you represent us and have fought to get into your position of responsibility. It cannot have been easy.

 

I have sent roughly 1000 (about one every 3 days) letters to various politicians and company’s over the last 3 years.

 

In the years before every month or so I wrote.

 

I don’t own a car and I make, build, repair and promote bicycles for free.

 

Because one seventh of the world’s water goes into cotton production I decided to try to only wear Oxfam bought clothes. That way I can support the poor directly and do very little damage.

 

I never use heating, preferring to put on a jumper.

 

I have planted thousands and thousands of carbon fixing plants and continue to do so.

 

I don’t think my carbon footprint is much at all, it may even be negative.

 

I have recently started to keep all correspondence so that I can show it to my children to prove that I was concerned and did try to do some good.

 

>

 

>You say

 

>

 

>"You make laws, so make some that are brave and might even turn things

 

>around."

 

>

 

>I disagree with you, laws can help but in the end people change things.

 

(Me)  Yes people make laws.

 

And are you saying that governments don’t govern and don’t have any responsibility and don’t make laws?

 

Explain please.

 

>

 

>Please can you let me know what you are doing?

 

This is what I am doing. Why are you asking me I don’t hold a position of responsibility, you do.

 

The point is you are in high echelons of government and if I am not mistaken that is where laws and future plans are made.

 

But you seem to be saying that you don’t? How can you justify that?

 

The question is what are you doing, that is real and is making palpable changes for the better?

 

You are in the position of power, not me.

 

And you, my representative, still have not answered any of my questions.

 

>

 

>I await your response with interest.

 

While we chat away merrily justifying ourselves and not taking responsibility, more holes are appearing in the fabric of our world, this will be fatal.

 

Prevarication will not help.

 

Sadly it is exactly this sort of prevarication, which will dam us all and is exactly what I expected.

 

You (collectively) still don’t seem to realise how dangerous the situation is.

 

If one person gets hurt we are up in arms (think Maddy) but whole species being wiped out does not ruffle us at all.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sensible Politics

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Dear Mary

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

The situation we face is very serious.

 

Indeed it makes me feel that we, firstly as a culture and secondly as a species, have little chance of survival.

 

I again noticed that you have not addressed any of the very serious problems I raised.

 

If we were at war we would change everything even our economy to survive.

 

I think you Know of the way we changed virtually everything during the 2nd world war, rationing, land girls, children being sent out of towns, people being pulled out of normal work to work on nationally important things vital to our survival.

 

Since we started this conversation 3 species an hour have become extinct.

 

So we have been communicating for 3 days and that means 216 species have disappeared during that time.

 

There is a limited supply and most are regarded as "keystone " species. IE if they disappear a whole collection of creatures also go.

 

What will we do when the cod vanish, the gulf stream moves, when the sea level rises 25 foot?

 

I don’t think it will be safe for any of us.

 

I put the ecology above all else and sadly, it is true, any other issues are secondary because without a healthy planet there is no human culture.



 

Befor we run out of species there will be a horrendous collapse with terrible consequences.

 

The thing is we don’t have very long to try, not to put things right but to limit the damage.

 

Wasting time with this sort of prevarication will dam us all and is exactly what I expected.

 

Dear private eye
After reading the Time last week I decided to renew my efforts and wrote again to all my MPs and MEPs.
I was not supprised that thiese are the answers.
They do show that we have no leadership in the serious situation we face.

Please excuse my spelling and the order that things are in .I am a dyslexic and it is vexing to get things in the wrong order.

Dear Mary
Thanks for the reply.
The situation we face is very serious.
Indeed it makes me feel that we, firstly as a culture and secondly as a species, have little chance of survival.
I again noticed that you have not addressed any of the very serious problems I raised.
If we were at war we would change everything even our economy to survive.
I think you Know of the way we changed virtualy everything during the 2nd world war, rationing, land girls, children being sent out of towns, people being pulled out of normal work to work on nationaly important things vital to our survival.
Since we started this conversation 3 species an hour have become extinct.
So we have been comunicating for 3 days and that means 216 species have dissapeared during that time.
There is a limited supply and most are regarded as "keystone " species. IE if they dissapere a whole collection of creatures also go.
What will we do when the cod vanish, the gulf stream moves, when the sea level rises 25 foot?
I dont think it will be safe for any of us.

I put the ecologey above all else and sadly, it is true, any other issues are secondary because without a healthy planet there is no human culture.



befor we run out of species there will be a horendus colapse with terrible consequences.
The thing is we dont have very long to try , not to put things right but to limit the damage.



>From: "Mary Honeyball" <mary@maryhoneyball.net>
>To: "leon jones" <lmjhoney@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Letter from your constituent Leon      Maurice-Jones]]
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:39:13 -0000 (GMT)
>
>Dear Leon,
>
>Thank you for your apology.
>
>I asked you
>
>"I wonder what your CV would show you have done?"
>
>You have not answered this question.
>
>Ms. Honeyball is a member of a political party which is in government.
>That government is acknowledged as being one of the world leaders on the
>issues you raise. She is also a member of several Environmental campaign
>groups. She also works on many other issues suchas the trafficking of
>women which you seem to suggest she should stop working on so that she can
>focus her energies on one single issue. She frequently goes out in her own
>time at weekends and in the evenings and knocks on people's doors,
>delivers leaflets and campaigns on the issues you raise.
>
>Now can you kindly please tell me what you have done on these issues over
>the last few years? What campaigning have you done? Which groups are you a
>member of? What positions do you hold? What have you done in your
>community? I have not gotten myself into a position of great responsibility, unlike you. (well done you)
I have not struggled up the "greasy pole" and those are not my tallents.
Haveing said that you represent us and have forght to get into your position of responsibility. It cannot have easy.
I have sent roughly 1000 (about one every 3 days) letters to various polititions and companys over the last 3 years.
In the years before Every month or so I wrote.
I dont own a car and I make, build, repair promote bicycles.
Because one seventh of the worlds water goes into cotten production I decided to try to only wear Oxfam bourght clothes.
I have planted thousands and thousands of carbon fixing plants.
I dont think my carbon foot print is much at all.

I wonder
I have recently started to keep all correspondance so that I can show it to my children to prove that I was concerned and did try to do some good.

>
>You say
>
>"You make laws, so make some that are brave and might even turn things
>around."
>
>I disagree with you, laws can help but in the end people change things. Yes people make laws.
And are you saying that governments dont govern?
>
>Please can you let me know what you are doing? this is what I am doing.
The point is you are in high echalons of government and if I am not mistaken that is where laws and future plans are made.
The question is what are you doing, that is real and is makeing palpable changes for the better?
>
>I await your response with interest. While we chat away merrily justifieing ourselfs and not takeing responsibility, more holes are appereing in the fabric of our world, this will be fatal.
Prevarication will not help.
Sadly it is exactly this sort of prevarication which will dam us all.
You (collectivly) still dont seem to realise how dangerous the situation is.


Yours sincerely,
Leon Maurice Jones



Dear Mary
Thanks for the reply.
The situation we face is very serious.
Indeed it makes me feel that we, firstly as a culture and secondly as a species, have little chance of survival.
I again noticed that you have not addressed any of the very serious problems I raised.
If we were at war we would change everything even our economy to survive.
I think you Know of the way we changed virtualy everything during the 2nd world war, rationing, land girls, children being sent out of towns, people being pulled out of normal work to work on nationaly important things vital to our survival.
Since we started this conversation 3 species an hour have become extinct.
So we have been comunicating for 3 days and that means 216 species have dissapeared during that time.
There is a limited supply and most are regarded as "keystone " species. IE if they dissapere a whole collection of creatures also go.
What will we do when the cod vanish, the gulf stream moves, when the sea level rises 25 foot? etc etc etc
I dont think it will be safe for any of us.
Long befor we run out of species there will be a horendus colapse with terrible consequences.
The thing is we dont have very long; not to put things right but just to limit the damage.

I put the ecologey above all else and sadly, it is true, any other issues are secondary because without a healthy planet there is no human culture.
I dont like it and there are so many important things to deal with (and fun things ) but without a safe place to live (the world) nothing and no one will have the luxury of things like human rights.
Now that you raised the subject, Is it not a primary human right to live a safe and comfortable life?
We are not going to be able to hand that to our children.






>From: "Mary Honeyball" <mary@maryhoneyball.net>
>To: "leon jones" <lmjhoney@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Letter from your constituent Leon      Maurice-Jones]]
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:39:13 -0000 (GMT)
>
>Dear Leon,
>
>Thank you for your apology.
>
>I asked you
>
>"I wonder what your CV would show you have done?"
>
>You have not answered this question.
>
>Ms. Honeyball is a member of a political party which is in government.
>That government is acknowledged as being one of the world leaders on the
>issues you raise. She is also a member of several Environmental campaign
>groups. She also works on many other issues suchas the trafficking of
>women which you seem to suggest she should stop working on so that she can
>focus her energies on one single issue. She frequently goes out in her own
>time at weekends and in the evenings and knocks on people's doors,
>delivers leaflets and campaigns on the issues you raise.
>
>Now can you kindly please tell me what you have done on these issues over
>the last few years? What campaigning have you done? Which groups are you a
>member of? What positions do you hold? What have you done in your
>community?


I have not gotten myself into a position of great responsibility, unlike you. (well done you)
I have not struggled up the "greasy pole" and those are not my tallents.
Haveing said that you represent us and have forght to get into your position of responsibility. It cannot have been easy.
I have sent roughly 1000 (about one every 3 days) letters to various polititions and companys over the last 3 years.
In the years before Every month or so I wrote.
I dont own a car and I make, build, repair and promote bicycles for free.
Because one seventh of the worlds water goes into cotten production I decided to try to only wear Oxfam bourght clothes. that way I can support the poor directly and do very little damage.
I never use heating, prefering to put on a jumper.
I have planted thousands and thousands of carbon fixing plants and continue to do so.
I dont think my carbon foot print is much at all, It may even be nagative.

I have recently started to keep all correspondance so that I can show it to my children to prove that I was concerned and did try to do some good.

>
>You say
>
>"You make laws, so make some that are brave and might even turn things
>around."
>
>I disagree with you, laws can help but in the end people change things.
(Me)  Yes people make laws.
And are you saying that governments dont govern and dont have any responsibility and dont make laws?
Explain please.
>
>Please can you let me know what you are doing?
This is what I am doing. Why are you asking me I dont hold a position of responsibility , you do.

The point is you are in high echalons of government and if I am not mistaken that is where laws and future plans are made. 
But you seem to be saying that you dont? how can you justifie that?
The question is what are you doing, that is real and is makeing palpable changes for the better?
You are in the position of power, not me.
And you , My representative, still have not answered any of my questions.
>
>I await your response with interest.

While we chat away merrily justifieing ourselfs and not takeing responsibility, more holes are appereing in the fabric of our world, this will be fatal.
Prevarication will not help.

Sadly it is exactly this sort of prevarication which will dam us all and exactly what I expected.
You (collectivly) still dont seem to realise how dangerous the situation is.
If one person gets hurt we are up in arms (Maddy) but whole species being wiped out does not ruffle us at all.

Yours sincerely,
Leon Maurice Jones


Ok
I am sorry and I appologise.
As you imply, makeing friends and being polite workes better than blatent abuse.
True and again I appologise.
I had just read The Times which painted a depresing picture of our actions, lack of foresite and the truely terrifieing future we are sailing into.
I certainly will be impressed with a very serious attitude, which you seem to be able to achieve.

Picture this.
We, Your family and mine are on a raft in the sea. We have nowhere else to go.
Some of us are breaking off bit and others drilling holes.
It seems to them to ok because thay have been did it befor and nothing went wrong then.
You and I have explained why its a very bad idea.
But everyone is having so much fun that no one is listening.
Now the boat is becomeing unstable.
Some are drowning and some are being thrown overbaord, and we cant prevent it.
Now it may actualy sink and we might not survive.

This is our situation

We face a truely bleak future and some of it will be in our life times.
I did notice , by the way that you in no way addressed any of the very serious issues I raised, I wonder why.
I am by no means perfect and there is a lot I would prefer to have done better or differently.
I am sorry but I am fed up. I have watch everyone destroy the world we live on because we cant come to terms with how we use our own idea, Money.
That and the fact that no one will do any thing about the population explosion.
You might have children, what world do you think they are going to live i?


>Dear Leon,
>
>I am unsure why you feel you can be so rude to people you almost certaily
>do not know personally. As you regard politicians as saying
>
>"Each and every time you tell lies and bullshit you allow the situation to
>worsen and more harm to be done."
>
>and
>
>"You are doing an excralbe job and literaly getting away with murder."
>
>to give but 2 examples.
>
>I wonder what your CV would show you have done?
>
>Is there any point in responding to you? You will not believe it will you?
>
>Whatever point you are trying to make, do you think anyone will take note
>of anyone who writes so rudely and abusively? So you advanced your case
>how far? Or possibly even set it back?
>
>Write to them which you have used explicitly asks people not to be
>abusive. I suggest you have a look at their guidelines.
>
>Any further abusive correspondence from yourself will not be responded to.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Mark Nottingham
>Political Manager
>Mary Honeyball MEP
>
>  ---------------------------- Original Message
> > ----------------------------
> > Subject: Letter from your constituent Leon Maurice-Jones
> > From:    "Leon Maurice-Jones" <lmjhoney@hotmail.com>
> > Date:    Tue, October 30, 2007 9:19 am
> > To:      "HONEYBALL Mary" <mary.honeyball@europarl.europa.eu>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > This message was also sent to: Claude Moraes MEP, Baroness Sarah Ludford
>MEP, Jean Lambert MEP, John Bowis OBE MEP, Charles Tannock MEP, Gerard
>Batten MEP, Syed Kamall MEP, Robert Evans MEP
> >
> >
> >                                              Leon Maurice-Jones
> >                                              5 Downton AveStreatham Hill
> > London
> >                                              SW2 3TU
> >
> >                                              Phone: 020 8678 9634
> >
> >                                              Email: lmjhoney@hotmail.com
> >
> >                                              Monday 29 October 2007
> >
> > Dear John Bowis OBE, Robert Evans, Gerard Batten, Baroness Sarah
>Ludford, Mary Honeyball, Claude Moraes, Syed Kamall, Charles Tannock and
>Jean Lambert,
> >
> > Considering the seriousness of the eco systems problems and the sheer
>scale of what we have to do to avoid certain disaster, I feel it
>essential we stop allowing miss-information, half truths, and general
>deviousness from those in power who are sailing us blythly into
> > catastrophe.
> > Each and every time you tell lies and bullshit you allow the situation
>to worsen and more harm to be done.
> >
> > 99% the solutions given are so laughably ill considered that it proves
>that you have absolutly no idea whats goin on, or how serious it is. You
>are doing an excralbe job and literaly getting away with murder. Sorry
>but
> > anything less is just not true.
> >
> > So,,
> > Under the circumstances:
> > 1 A. Do you think you should continue this way?
> >    B. If we dont change, how long can we go on?
> > 2 What level of rigor will you apply to the solutions given?
> >
> > Considering you worked, struggled, and generaly spent half a lifetime
>getting to your positions of responsibility dont you think its about
>time you did some real work and started to realy make a change in the
>way we do
> > things and the value we put on life on this planet?
> >
> > in 20 years time when the sea has started its 25 foot rise and hundreds of
> > millions of    miles of arable land is under water and their
> > populations are fleeing to safe places, when most animals can no longere
>see because of the cataracts caused by ozone depleation, when global
>starvation is happening because of droughts and storms and floods and
>poisoned soil and the colapse of fish stocks, then do you think
> > that the excuse of "it was dificult" or" it did not make economic sence"
>will be acceptable by the public?
> > The shere scale of what you have to do is extrodinary but more
> > extrordinary is the complete lack of appropriate action.
> > "Are you quite insane" is what people will be asking.
> > The planet is real, Money, Business, Politics, Religions are all
>temporal and fun stuff for humans but their not important when compared
>to
> > life on planet Earth.

Dear John Bowis OBE, Robert Evans, Gerard Batten, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Mary Honeyball, Claude Moraes, Syed Kamall, Charles Tannock and Jean Lambert,

Considering the seriousness of the eco systems problems and the sheer scale of what we have to do to avoid certain disaster, I feel it essential we stop allowing miss-information, half truths, and general deviousness from those in power who are sailing us blythly into catastrophe.
Each and every time you tell lies and bullshit you allow the situation to worsen and more harm to be done.
How is it that when its a funny shaped tomato or an ignoramus with tits or some game company releases an update, its front page news! But as its only the biggest change to life on Earth for millions or years and certainly terminal for the majority of species here, we have govenrment and buiseness giving half arsed excuses.
99% the solutions given are so laughably ill considered that it proves that you have absolutly no idea whats goin on, or how serious it is.
You are doing an excralbe job and literaly getting away with murder.
Sorry but anything less is just not true.

So,,
Under the circumstances:
1 A. Do you think you should continue this way?
   B. If we dont change, how long can we go on?
2 What level of rigor will you apply to the solutions given?

Considering you worked, struggled, and generaly spent half a lifetime getting to your positions of responsibility dont you think its about time you did some real work and started to realy make a change in the way we do things and the value we put on life on this planet?

in 20 years time when the sea has started its 25 foot rise and hundreds of millions of  miles of arable land is under water and their populations are fleeing to safe places, when most animals can no longere see because of the cataracts caused by ozone depleation, when global starvation is happening because of droughts and storms and floods and poisoned soil and the colapse of fish stocks, then do you think that the excuse of "it was dificult" or" it did not make economic sence" will be acceptable by the public?
The shere scale of what you have to do is extrodinary but more extrordinary is the complete lack of Awareness and appropriate action.
"Are you quite insane" is what people will be asking.



Below is a letter sent to Working lunch on this very subject.


Dear Working lunch
I just watched the BBC2 TV (1:00pm to 2:00pm) news and the discussion on climate change.

The "eco" situation is so universally dangerous that letting ill informed journalists and bullshitting politicians get away with it is playing into the hands of the irresponsible.
In general even the most obvious lies from politicians are allowed to pass without comment especially those connected to the biosphere.
Don't be part of it.
I think that dangerous incompetence is just that, and should be exposed as such.
The stakes are high.
Considering our "eco" situation is the most dangerous thing to happen on Earth since the demise of the dinosaurs, you needed to have a better informed interviewer, and you lacked an honest critique of the preventative measures and how effective they would be.

Ie
"Yes minister and if we do all of that, scientists say, mankind could still be destroyed.
Under the circumstances do you think that that is an adequate response?"

If we were at war we would change everything even our economy and did but climate catastrophy is very much more dangerous and yet we are doing nothing.


What is lacking here, and would help, is rigor and a post-interview analysis by a serious and well researched "authority".
If measures are being taken exactly what are they?
How helpful will they be?
Are they enough?

Don't forget we are talking about mankind's survival on Earth and it all happens in the next 20 years. That means a complete change of almost all the ways in which humans do things, and that just to survive.
I think a little forthrightness towards politicians is not excessive.


We don't want idiots on our roads but when it comes to the whole planet, we have a surfeit of idiocy.
The planet is real, Money, Business, Politics, Religions are all temporal and fun stuff for humans but their not important when compared to life on planet Earth.

As part of the most trusted democracy in the world, you have a real responsibility here.

Thanks
Leon Maurice-Jones


Yours sincerely,






leonard Igbodo    0207 926 3591  ligbodo@lambeth.gov.uk
transport               0207 926 9000 op 4
================================================

Dear June Fewtrell, Ashley Lumsden and Jeremy Clyne,
AS we have all seen The Times Last week an the fires in california do you think it might be time to start takeing this situation seriously.
Everything we are doing so far will not make any real differance to the plight we face.
Its about time to realy start to make some real and fundamental changes.
I want to know what realy affective measures are being taken?
Also I want to test out how receptive you are to positive suggestions and to see if there is any point in trying.

I went to a wind farm in the wash about 2 years ago. 
It was about 7 years old and owned by the local council who paid for it out of the council tax.
In 5 years it had paid for its self and, apart from maintainance, was producing free power for the population.

1. Why doesnt Lambeth have an array of wind farms?
2. I want to know what realy affective measures are being taken?




Yours sincerely,
leon Maurice-Jones



Dear Mary
Thanks for the reply.
The situation we face is very serious.
Indeed it makes me feel that we, firstly as a culture and secondly as a species, have little chance of survival.
I again noticed that you have not addressed any of the very serious problems I raised.
If we were at war we would change everything even our economy to survive.
I think you Know of the way we changed virtualy everything during the 2nd world war, rationing, land girls, children being sent out of towns, people being pulled out of normal work to work on nationaly important things vital to our survival.
Since we started this conversation 3 species an hour have become extinct.
So we have been comunicating for 3 days and that means 216 species have dissapeared during that time.
There is a limited supply and most are regarded as "keystone " species. IE if they dissapere a whole collection of creatures also go.
What will we do when the cod vanish, the gulf stream moves, when the sea level rises 25 foot?
I dont think it will be safe for any of us.

I put the ecologey above all else and sadly, it is true, any other issues are secondary because without a healthy planet there is no human culture.



befor we run out of species there will be a horendus colapse with terrible consequences.
The thing is we dont have very long to try , not to put things right but to limit the damage.



>From: "Mary Honeyball" <mary@maryhoneyball.net>
>To: "leon jones" <lmjhoney@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Letter from your constituent Leon      Maurice-Jones]]
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:39:13 -0000 (GMT)
>
>Dear Leon,
>
>Thank you for your apology.
>
>I asked you
>
>"I wonder what your CV would show you have done?"
>
>You have not answered this question.
>
>Ms. Honeyball is a member of a political party which is in government.
>That government is acknowledged as being one of the world leaders on the
>issues you raise. She is also a member of several Environmental campaign
>groups. She also works on many other issues suchas the trafficking of
>women which you seem to suggest she should stop working on so that she can
>focus her energies on one single issue. She frequently goes out in her own
>time at weekends and in the evenings and knocks on people's doors,
>delivers leaflets and campaigns on the issues you raise.
>
>Now can you kindly please tell me what you have done on these issues over
>the last few years? What campaigning have you done? Which groups are you a
>member of? What positions do you hold? What have you done in your
>community? I have not gotten myself into a position of great responsibility, unlike you. (well done you)
I have not struggled up the "greasy pole" and those are not my tallents.
Haveing said that you represent us and have forght to get into your position of responsibility. It cannot have easy.
I have sent roughly 1000 (about one every 3 days) letters to various polititions and companys over the last 3 years.
In the years before Every month or so I wrote.
I dont own a car and I make, build, repair promote bicycles.
Because one seventh of the worlds water goes into cotten production I decided to try to only wear Oxfam bourght clothes.
I have planted thousands and thousands of carbon fixing plants.
I dont think my carbon foot print is much at all.

I wonder
I have recently started to keep all correspondance so that I can show it to my children to prove that I was concerned and did try to do some good.

>



Dear Mary
Thanks for the reply.
The situation we face is very serious.
Indeed it makes me feel that we, firstly as a culture and secondly as a species, have little chance of survival.
I again noticed that you have not addressed any of the very serious problems I raised.
If we were at war we would change everything even our economy to survive.
I think you Know of the way we changed virtualy everything during the 2nd world war, rationing, land girls, children being sent out of towns, people being pulled out of normal work to work on nationaly important things vital to our survival.
Since we started this conversation 3 species an hour have become extinct.
So we have been comunicating for 3 days and that means 216 species have dissapeared during that time.
There is a limited supply and most are regarded as "keystone " species. IE if they dissapere a whole collection of creatures also go.
What will we do when the cod vanish, the gulf stream moves, when the sea level rises 25 foot? etc etc etc
I dont think it will be safe for any of us.
Long befor we run out of species there will be a horendus colapse with terrible consequences.
The thing is we dont have very long; not to put things right but just to limit the damage.

I put the ecologey above all else and sadly, it is true, any other issues are secondary because without a healthy planet there is no human culture.
I dont like it and there are so many important things to deal with (and fun things ) but without a safe place to live (the world) nothing and no one will have the luxury of things like human rights.
Now that you raised the subject, Is it not a primary human right to live a safe and comfortable life?
We are not going to be able to hand that to our children.






>From: "Mary Honeyball" <mary@maryhoneyball.net>
>To: "leon jones" <lmjhoney@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Letter from your constituent Leon      Maurice-Jones]]
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:39:13 -0000 (GMT)
>
>Dear ,
>
>Thank you for your apology.
>
>I asked you
>
>"I wonder what your CV would show you have done?"
>
>You have not answered this question.
>
>Ms. Honeyball is a member of a political party which is in government.
>That government is acknowledged as being one of the world leaders on the
>issues you raise. She is also a member of several Environmental campaign
>groups. She also works on many other issues suchas the trafficking of
>women which you seem to suggest she should stop working on so that she can
>focus her energies on one single issue. She frequently goes out in her own
>time at weekends and in the evenings and knocks on people's doors,
>delivers leaflets and campaigns on the issues you raise.
>
>Now can you kindly please tell me what you have done on these issues over
>the last few years? What campaigning have you done? Which groups are you a
>member of? What positions do you hold? What have you done in your
>community?


I have not gotten myself into a position of great responsibility, unlike you. (well done you)
I have not struggled up the "greasy pole" and those are not my tallents.
Haveing said that you represent us and have forght to get into your position of responsibility. It cannot have been easy.
I have sent roughly 1000 (about one every 3 days) letters to various polititions and companys over the last 3 years.
In the years before Every month or so I wrote.
I dont own a car and I make, build, repair and promote bicycles for free.
Because one seventh of the worlds water goes into cotten production I decided to try to only wear Oxfam bourght clothes. that way I can support the poor directly and do very little damage.
I never use heating, prefering to put on a jumper.
I have planted thousands and thousands of carbon fixing plants and continue to do so.
I dont think my carbon foot print is much at all, It may even be nagative.

I have recently started to keep all correspondance so that I can show it to my children to prove that I was concerned and did try to do some good.

>
>You say
>
>"You make laws, so make some that are brave and might even turn things
>around."
>
>I disagree with you, laws can help but in the end people change things.
(Me)  Yes people make laws.
And are you saying that governments dont govern and dont have any responsibility and dont make laws?
Explain please.
>
>Please can you let me know what you are doing?
This is what I am doing. Why are you asking me I dont hold a position of responsibility , you do.

The point is you are in high echalons of government and if I am not mistaken that is where laws and future plans are made. 
But you seem to be saying that you dont? how can you justifie that?
The question is what are you doing, that is real and is makeing palpable changes for the better?
You are in the position of power, not me.
And you , My representative, still have not answered any of my questions.
>
>I await your response with interest.

While we chat away merrily justifieing ourselfs and not takeing responsibility, more holes are appereing in the fabric of our world, this will be fatal.
Prevarication will not help.

Sadly it is exactly this sort of prevarication which will dam us all and exactly what I expected.
You (collectivly) still dont seem to realise how dangerous the situation is.
If one person gets hurt we are up in arms (Maddy) but whole species being wiped out does not ruffle us at all.

Yours sincerely,
 

COP2 Letters.

 Tuesday 15 December 2009

 

Dear Keith Hill,

For godness sake make our leaders in Copenhagen take the actions
nesssacery to stop ecological disaster. It dosnt realy matter what it
costs, life is more important.
The small nations are right we have caused the problem and we should
sort it out, fast. So dont let the selfish and irrisponsible manipulate
this agreement. It must be strong.

Yours sincerely,

Leon Maurice-Jones   Dear Keith Hill,
Re Copenhagen talks.

Your talks failed.
The planet cannot sustain your failure.
GO BACK and do it properly.

Yours sincerely,
Leon Maurice-Jones

 

Dear Sensible politics,

Thank you for your apology.

I asked you

"I wonder what your CV would show you have done?"

You have not answered this question.
Now I have but you have not.
You are public servants and thus it is you who should be answering questions not I.
It is, after all, the publics money that fills your pockets and the public who relys upon you.


Ms. Honeyball is a member of a political party which is in government.
That government is acknowledged as being one of the world leaders on the
issues you raise.
Very good,  But too little and not soon enough is nothing to be proud of.
No use crowing about presiding over a blatently slow reaction and a bothced series measures.
Sorry.

She is also a member of several Environmental campaign
groups.
Exalent. Do you think enough is being done?
What else can you do?
How soon?
How long do we have?

She also works on many other issues suchas the trafficking of
women which you seem to suggest she should stop working on
I said nothing about womens rights.
so that she can focus her energies on one single issue.
Unfaultable But Sadly without a safe place to exist we wont have any chance for social justice or any kind of life.

She frequently goes out in her own
time at weekends and in the evenings and knocks on people's doors,
delivers leaflets and campaigns on the issues you raise.
Well Done, most laudable. Thank you.

Now can you kindly please tell me what you have done on these issues over
the last few years?
What campaigning have you done?
Which groups are you a
member of?
What positions do you hold?
What have you done in your community?
Thiese I have answered. What I do is not relavent because it is you who is in power, not I.

You say

"You make laws, so make some that are brave and might even turn things
around."

I disagree with you, laws can help but in the end people change things.
Are you saying that laws to are not worth having? or that they dont work? If so why do we have any laws and why have a  government if it is not to govern? It is people who are asking you to do something realy quickly.

Please can you let me know what you are doing and how effective you think it will be.

Sinita Narian
"the west is Flatulent and Irrisponsible. We need to reduce emmissions by 80% to 85% within 20 years to stand a chance of surviving. Consumer capitalism cannot continue this way."

I await your response with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Sensible politics

I never got a reply.

 

 

Free website powered by Beep.com
 
The responsible person for the content of this web site is solely
the webmaster of this website, approachable via this form!