Skip to content
Aside

Paterson ‘s Ambition #Badger Cull

Owen Paterson has carried the latest #Badger Cull debate in the House of Commons and will proceed to instruct the #NFU licensed marksmen to undertake a controversial slaughter of significant numbers of badgers in two trial areas.

The campaign and debate have been rigorous an applied scientifically in the main by the opponents of the #cull setting themselves against an entrenched and dogmatic Minister.

Researching behind the scenes has repeatedly exposed the matrix of links and associations between government,agriculture,hunting and the predictable vested traditional interest groups all reinforcing each others perspective to the exclusion of any scientific or inconvenient truth.

Despite the vigorous public opposition of a passionate and well organised anti cull lobby Government , as embodied by Owen Paterson , never altered its position even in the face of concerted political pressure and scientific reason.

That inflexibility and general indifference to anyone other than vested interest groups that support the government almost as a reflex and badge of identity , may yet come to haunt this Government in the long-term.

It is important that I accept I might be proved wrong by events but if that is the case I based all my argument on the best scientific opinion available to the general public and never once avoided facts or information that emerged in several months of campaigning to stop the cull.

I can find no coherent scientific support for the Paterson/Defra postion that sustains careful examination.

If argument supported by best evidence and reason cannot prevail what hope is there for the democratic process.

British parliamentary history is riddled with inflexible political strategies that came off the rails , sadly on this occasion it will be at the expense of a summarily executed badger population  unless someone intervenes.

I have other issues that must take priority in terms of my own immediate activity but I fear that others deeply upset by Owen Patterson and the NFU may find themselves now utterly frustrated by the democratic process and recourse to direct action .

The course of this activity will be determined by how rigid the #Cull is applied but expect to see television images parallel to those of the last miners strike if sides become entrenched.

How can we as a society either afford the cost of maintaining a police presence  or the consequences of the social and political division that will result?

Why did David Cameron allow this situation to develop and Owen Paterson  to lead policy  taking  control of the Conservative party ?

All these matters will unwind in the coming months and there may yet be a few unexpected twists and turns but science and common-sense are damaged ….we shall have to wait to see to what extent and if matters can be repaired.

For Badgers: hopefully they can be protected by those dedicated campaigners who will maintain a vigil.

SteveTomlinSustainability.

Asthall Leigh.

June 5th 2013

Advertisements

A sad reflection on Government….

Theoretically today marks the beginning of the bTB Badger #cull “trials” despite months of fierce and passionate campaigning by those of us opposed to such an ill conceived policy.

I have always taken the position that The Government have ignored the best independent scientific opinion and pursued an approach that will in time prove costly and flawed.

I am aware there are many opponents marching against the cull today in London that farmers would describe dismissively as taking a soft position that fails to understand the commercially devastating consequences of bovine TB  but that view fails to acknowledge the hard nosed science and best research opinion  arraigned  against the NFU and it’s supporters.

The science says the cull will be ineffective and that is a considered and substantiated opinion of those who have conducted two decades of thorough and rigorous study.

Farmers and Defra mutter to themselves in superior tones that the opposition is “woolly” and has failed to understand the problem; comforting themselves by repeating the received wisdom that has done the rounds for years and believing that makes them beyond reproach.

Sadly their, view which may prevail in the short run, has no foundation in science unless our scholarly scientists have misrepresented the facts.

If bigotry prevails  over science, Owen Paterson and the government he represents will have perpetrated a grave misrepresentation and breeched irrevocably public trust in the farming sector.

Suffice to say the following weeks may see conflict and confrontation and one can only hope the worst excesses of entrenched positions do not materialise . If regrettably division and frustration are the winners, we are all losers .

As a constituent of the Prime Minister I would not be able to vote for an administration that ignores logic and is hell-bent on the unnecessary destruction of wildlife.

Defra, NFU and Owen Paterson ……you may have gained a pyrrhic victory but history will find you out.

Steve Tomlin

Asthall Leigh June 1st 2013

The Revolution will not be Televised

Why so long since the last blog ?

I have been thinking ………and can see no pathway through the current malaise on climate change or any sign of conviction to pay more than lip service to addressing the problem by political leaders.

Today R4’s #Today Programme  announced that “officially” we have arrived at the much predicted  400 parts per million threshold of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

If not sanguine there is a resignation about this event that reminds this sixties child of Gil Scot-Heron’s#The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Not it’s literal detail but the sentiment that our politicians are sitting on their hands praying the inevitable consequence of their own inaction will not rebound or ever happen if they continue to look away.

Gil Scot-Heron song  exemplifies the condition that completely fails to understand reality.

More frighteningly he identifies the paralysed inaction of confused , deluded and unimaginative individuals who have come to expect the political reality to exist in a stable state  without taking any responsibility for it’s process or soul.

We are in fact as a society #watching and waiting in terms of the climate debate and not demanding action to alter the consequences of our behaviour. This fatalism , and it must be stressed it is our own inaction, cannot be a transferred responsibility to others .

The “revolution” is not to be televised….there will be no re-runs ….the revolution will be Live” to remember Heron’s words.

Months ago I reported the 400 parts per million threshold breached and have spoken of “passing the fulcrum of no return“, but nothing changes dramatically enough to be significant to alter the course of our own destruction.

I have struggled to write in recent weeks for fear of simply providing more verbiage that alters nothing and out of an academic egotism that I will marginalise my own work by being too extreme and over-stated.

I know that beating people over the head with information often alienates more than it improves but at what point do we recognise the fate of the  planet and the threat to our very daily existence before we change our lifestyles.

It is no longer theoretical we are now in a terminal behaviour pattern and must act.

Television will not mitigate the problem …you cannot “stay home turn on and cop out“… “it will put you in the drivers seat” ……

to quote 1970’s Small Talk … The revolution effects you !!

Steve tomlin Sustainability

Asthall Leigh

May 11th 2013

Day#1282

Baffling Brains…. End # Recycling ,before it is too late !

George Monbiot’s Guardian article (1) challenging consumption and calling for a fundamental reappraisal of our attitudes to recycling struck a note of  encouragement in a sea of misunderstanding.

For more than a decade a small group of colleagues have invoked a plague of wrath upon the houses of recycling champions, sometimes resorting to overstatement to attract attention.

I have often commenced conference speeches with a clarion call to end recycling simply to gather attention to what has become  the greatest political environmental self-deception of our age.

Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed when I stress the problem is not always deliberate or an act of wilful political denial or even intentional  deception but, unquestionably the often sincerely advanced belief that we as a society are  being virtuous in our determined pursuit of recycling as an alternative to throwing away materials, however, it  is a nonsense.

It seems counter intuitive to dramatically suggest we desist recovering materials through the re-cycling processes,abandoning what seems to be a sensible approach to addressing the problem of needing to divert materials from landfill and save resources ,but we delude ourselves.

The problem revolves around the failure to recover the #embedded carbon value within materials for disposal.

Recycling is the lowest common denominator solution and is belatedly now being described by people appreciating the problem as “down-cycling” .

This failure by our political; leaders to understand that far from being virtuous we are actually failing to address the real problems of consumption and embedded carbon recovery constitutes a major obstacle to reducing the problem of #material resource efficiency and in turn climate change.

Whilst the European Union has endeavoured to invert the waste pyramid hierarchy, placing reduction of consumption, reuse and reclamation (up-cycling) above recycling (down cycling), in Britain we have pursued straight line recycling with a total commitment and bathed ourselves in self-congratulation as we achieve ever higher recycling levels but, fundamentally fail to radically change anything in reality other than nominally reduce landfill pressure.

Sadly never understanding how disastrously our energies are misplaced and contradictory to intent.

Without distracting from my main thesis the latest shocking revelations  of “Exported re-cyclates for incineration in the Far East” are an even more disastrous betrayal of the general public who diligently sort their tins,packaging and glass products believing they are being diverted from landfill for recovery.

This misrepresentation by local authorities is not only a deceit but threatens to undermine the remarkable public subscription to positively changing  behaviour patterns witnessed in recent years ; not to mention a wretched abuse of valuable resources that we desperately need to recover rather than constantly  buy costly replacement virgin raw materials .

The core problem remains political illiteracy when it comes to material resource efficiency. Most politicians glow at the mention of successful recycling programmes, never suspecting they are delivering a lowest common denominator solution that misses the real objective.

Energy from incineration,landfill diversion and a happy public enjoying participating in environmental projects held to be virtuous are all ingredients for politicians to glow with pride and not ask too many questions about the reality of down-recycling.

It is imperative we design for end of life re-use, manufacture durable multi purpose products that are easily serviceable and minimise packaging. Issues of imaginative standardisation and interchangeability need serious investigation .

George Monbiot also points out the conceit of maintaining consumption beyond proportionality to our needs and the failure to want to fundamentally address life style excess .

Throw-away and down-cycling are obsolete options in our finite world that continues to consume at a rate equivalent to a planet three times the capacity of Earth’s resources.

This denial of reality and failure to accept responsibility for our excesses is deeply ingrained in our materialistic psyche and obsessive self-interest  .

The issue of pursuing recycling without deeper critical evaluation is at best an intellectual bankruptcy of our political leadership or at worst it’s a sinister and cynical deliberate manipulation of the factual basis of resource recovery by vested interests who are indifferent to the needs of the global environment and science.

Stevetomlinsustainability.

Asthall Leigh April 17th 2013

(1) G.Monbiot/Guardian article http://t.co/OsifDygFXO

Let there be division where there is harmony …… #Miners and Badgers

Recently I expressed concern the proposed  #Badgercull and bTB debate was in danger of becoming viciously acrimonious and suggested that Owen Patterson was a protagonist of unfettered free-market policies which might herald a transformation of the fundamental nature of the rural landscape. With the prescience of fortune I reflected how Harold Macmillan was drawn to challenge #Margaret Thatchers government of the day to withdraw the emotive slur that the miners were the “Enemy Within” in the interest of avoiding further division at a time of heightened social and political confrontation.

Whilst holding no brief for the late Mrs Thatcher , I recoil at some of the anger fuelled and venomous comments that are flying about in the immediate aftermath of her death.

I opposed her in office unequivocally and can never forgive her for the manner in which she altered much that I held to be important in the established fabric of Britain.

 I carefully say “altered” when many would say destroyed and vilified because I sincerely believe much of the power politicians like Margaret Thatcher wield is derived from the re-action they provoke and they are best diminished by understatement.

Geoffrey Howe dismantled Thatcher in the House of Commons with a resignation speech that was “quietly lethal” and “calmly delivered spite” as revenge for the bullying his leader administered to the moderate long suffering Howe.

Thatcher celebrated confrontation and given all the power of the British Prime Minister she was more than equal to her equals.(1) Out of confrontation she fashioned a celebrity by justifying all situations referenced to her own will and strength to resist regardless of subject or substance. 

As we inevitably undergo saturation coverage of her political legacy it offers an important lesson for those campaigning against governments of the day .

Arthur Scargill tried to take Thatcher and McGregor her champion head on with virulent and uncompromising rhetoric that merely gave the queen of confrontation the easy option to play the need for law and order card , marginalising Scargill as extremist and unreasonable.

Kim Howells (South Wales, NUM) and Mick McGaghey (Scottish Mineworkers Union) both privately counselled a more flexible approach and I recall a late night meeting in Blackpool  during the 1980’s strike ,with the Scot heavily imbibed, excoriating Scargill in private for only knowing  confrontation whilst miners starved.

This was never reported.

The relevance, turning back to the impending badger cull, is the anger for those of us opposing this unscientific policy,  should be carefully directed and not through frustration be permitted to degenerate away from our considered and science based position.

In recent weeks there is evidence of increasingly angry exchanges between elements on both sides of the debate. I believe some of this confrontation is deflecting from the need to carry the farming community with us and to make the case  we all need to contribute to a soundly scientific approach, that will develop best practice for removing this dreadful disease from the national herd.

 There are no winners if the outcome is a slaughter that leaves the problem unresolved and a resentment and bitterness that will not be easily healed  in the aftermath.

Macmillan pleaded for  patience and the fortitude to work together at all costs to avoid social and political division that would wreak havoc.

Thatcher would have called for her opponents to “bring it on” which  the wisdom of the elder statesman understood achieved only contempt and a memory harbouring bitterness.

 Stevetomlinsustainability.

Asthall Leigh .April 09 2013

(1) adapted from the  Greek: Primus inter pares First amongst equals or peers.

Anthony Sampson  :Anatomy of Britain described the Prime minster as “First Amongst Equals …with the power of a dictator ” as I recall 

Deep Divisions in British Society over #Badger Cull

Michael Heseltine’s intervention(1) in the financial crisis to-day expressing concern the UK  lacks the will and resolution to achieve economic change because Britain suffers  from affluence complacency, reminded me of the late Harold MacMillan’s (2)intervention at the height of Thatcherism .

Macmillan expressing shock that miners should be regarded as the Enemy Within, which might be even more relevant on the eve of what I believe will be a catastrophically divisive policy decision by #Owen Paterson to go ahead with the #badger cull. 

Hesseltine’s reknown quality has always been to grab headlines and be glamorously correct after the event.

MacMillian’s comments came as a  reflection of deep concern by a former Prime Minister(1957-1963) and a very senior statesman who saw Britain being driven apart in the  Miners strike (1984-85) by a government he perceived to have abandoned traditional core values of  One Nation Conservatism .

He was concerned that Margaret Thatcher and the leadership of the Conservative party had divorced itself from orthodox consensus to the detriment of the broader nation in the eyes of the Etonian patrician, who once extolled  “Britain had never had it so good” whilst Heseltine seems to imply “we have it too good for our own good!” .

I am drawn to make the association between MacMillan’s concern for the nation being torn apart those years ago and the present conflict  between the two sides of the #Bovine Tuberculosis  debate because matters have reached a critical and deeply impassioned moment  and before events become too heated to retrieve what will be a  tragic situation potentially leaving  our nation  divided and unable to turn back.

The #cull is scheduled for July 2013 despite the scientific weight of opinion indicating that it will be ineffective or only marginal in its attempt to reduce infection within the national dairy herd.

Rather than address the detailed scientific issues again, despite previously vigorously  campaigning against the cull, I am concerned now to address the social  consequences  if the government and specifically Owen Paterson persist with their  expressed intentions .

The consequence of headlines and news broadcasts describing the destruction of up-to 10,000 badgers will unleash a resentment and anger that will leave the already estranged farming community even further isolated  and their opponents furious and in a hostile frame of mind that will not recover or go away quickly..

All farmers will inevitably suffer from this anger and will be characterised collectively as indifferent and self-interested regardless of their individual dispositions.

If as is suspected the Badger cull is a distraction from deficiencies of  forthcoming  government policy proposals the farmers may find themselves without public support when they most need it in the not too distant future.

The public ,whilst still purchasing from the big supermarket chains, have in recent years understood the pressure adversely exerted upon  farmers in their efforts to supply quality home-grown goods for a commercially viable return.

That sympathy may well evaporate.

 Paterson is a free-marketeer and will eventually remove subsidies that protect small farms.

Who then will farmers have to stand up for them ? …certainly not the ground of Middle England they are choosing to alienate by killing Badgers..

I draw the association with Macmillan’s concern for a divided nation from my own memories of the 1984-85 Miners Strike that decimated the traditional mining communities and left them utterly bereft of hope  for many years.

During the strike  living in an affluent , albeit radical Cotswold community, in the Stroud Valleys we provided support and sustenance to the Cwm , Ebbw Vale, Marine Colliery miners and families in South Wales for almost 2 years and came to know their stories and lives as friends.

Coming and going with community arts entertainment and welfare support programmes I witnessed how embedded a  hatred of an insensitive London based government  could get when matters became  so polarised.

People almost starved and were desperately  proud to support their own families and communities whilst the NUM national leadership and government fought from rigid positions on both sides.

Following the eventual return to work behind their banners and colliery bands they enjoyed a brief respite before they discovered too late the industry was in terminal decline velocity and the “valleys” were spent and destroyed……. if never defeated.

The residual anger was tangible and still haunts many communities to this day.

You cannot repair such anger in a single generation.

Given our nations current economic and environmental difficulties our society can barely afford further, let alone deep divisions, if a common objectives and united political will are fragmented by bitter rows over bTB.

Heseltine is right to point out the need to be unified and purposeful but there is a further historic connection of fate that befalls  the farmers and  former miners …..

The miners were led by a powerful and rigid leadership that enjoyed class confrontation before a negotiated arrangement.

The NFU like the NUM of the day is leading its membership with a closed mind, preferring to posture rather than understanding the longer game or the virtues of flexibility and gentle persuasion .

The NFU leadership is intransigent and committed to oppose scientific opinion and public concern.

Ten thousand carcasses are not going to change the fate of the farming community positively and someone has to intervene to call for a better approach that will carry the general public and protect the long-term fortunes of agriculture or Macmillan’s ghost may reappear and farmers like miners may become an insignificant sector spoken of in the past tense.

Stevetomlinsustainability .

WordPress.com

Asthall Leigh

(1)March 25th 2013http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-michael-heseltine-fears-british-people-are-too-rich-to-push-for-economic-recovery-8547641.html

Macmillian (2) Viscount Ovenden, Earl Stockton 1894-1986  IN November 1984 He criticised Margaret Thatcher for treating the “brave men who helped defeat the Kaiser and Hitler…..as the Enemy Within” 

(2a) ” We used to have battles and rows  but they were quarrels and we got over them”

Javelin Park #Incinerator… a triumph of common-sense …in the End

Rather than gloat about campaigners in Gloucestershire having succeeded in stopping the construction of a proposed #incineration plant(1) and setting aside the technology issues which should have aborted the project from the outset, I am concerned that significant lessons are understood from this protracted and at times bitter environmental planning exercise.

The refusal by the Gloucestershire County Council Planning Authority to allow permission to proceed with an incinerator plant to dispose of refuse and waste should not be seen as a Luddite  act  or nimbyism, but rather  the defeat of a technological approach to material handling that should be removed from the recovery hierarchy for all time and probably the seminal point at which materials described as “Waste ” should be conveyed to the historical record for future generations to marvel at our total failure to understand the value of “resources”.

Stepping aside for one moment from the main issues,had incineration technology gained approval, the people of Gloucestershire would have been locked into an inflexible contractual commitment that might not have been reversible for several decades and not enabled the adoption of other rapidly advancing  more enlightened approaches .

Not to mention the profligate waste of resources incineration reinforces and the convenience factor that it encourages over the need to address consumption and higher carbon recovery methodologies. 

I have written for more than a decade that we may yet mine existing landfill sites to recover precious buried resources at some point in the future and nearly 25 years ago, when I was MD at Reclamation Services Ltd (2) I took a front page advertisement in the #Stroud News& Journal asking …When you throw away materials …WHERE IS AWAY ?.… in an attempt to challenge members of the public to consider disposal pathways, long before it was fashionable let alone the greatest imperative and arguably the most critical consideration in this age of climate and carbon crisis.

Our planet is finite and resources are more fiercely competed for by our international competitors than ever before at considerable and ever increasing cost not to mention the scarcity and strategic problems of the global economy. Even if we could afford previously to be wasteful we certainly do not have that privilege as we confront the need to reduce our #carbon footprint and the cost of energy which needs to be sustainable.

Returning to the main issue.

Why is it that we have so much technology, knowledge and experience yet fail to implement policies and apply the best thinking at a planning level that could resolve our difficulties.

Its too easy to blame capitalism ,corporate might and political masters although they are part of the equation and need to be understood.

On this occasion Javelin Park provides a perfect example of the mechanics of decision making and the way issues unfold.

The proposers of  any incineration recovery scheme are looking to capitalise on an opportunity that blatantly exists and needs resolving nominally municipal waste.

Incineration is plausible and seemingly convenient. Plainly the operators can see the profitability in the provision of a service that most local authorities would identify as politically and socially important. It may not be very glamorous but un-emptied refuse is the very blight of any local authority Environmental Services Department and ratepayers do not intellectualise the merits of inefficient disposal pathways. They blame, and when they call the local authority reception desk to complain to their respective ward representative, their Councillor  who in turn complains through the appropriate channels to  the “officers of the council”.

Anyone in local government knows what happens next if officers haven’t addressed the problem *yesterday*: the officers are arraigned at the next full council meeting with outraged indignation particularly by members who know that *grandstanding* grabs headlines in local newspapers in a way that quite correspondence exchanges go unnoticed ,even if just as effective.

 The point I am labouring, is in a chain of blame the easy option “to do *Something*  and Quickly” is often to adopt the line of least resistance and find *a solution* which may not be the better long term resolution but gets council officers and executives off the hook.

I do not mean to diminish the integrity of all council officers but I have seen time again officers lambasted and blamed who are then reduced to popular pragmatism to avoid sometimes vicious verbal assaults to satisfy political motives.

All this in the context of  ever changing criteria and financial austerity being leveraged by Central Government pressure to “do more with less”.

Hardly an atmosphere that encourages long term planning or enlightened thinking. More members of the public should try sitting through a full council agenda which is often mind numbingly complex and very hostile even in the age of cabinet councils.

This brings me onto the actual councillors who are in the main decent law abiding people often pitched into power by the internal vagaries of their constituency parties without training or support services. Whilst diligent and overtly conscientious councillors come briefed and researched to Full Council Meetings many are straight from work or simply overwhelmed by the detail which they trust to “the officers” integrity to provide.

Whilst I have sat through some of the best discussions and briefings at council meetings , generally they are not good forums for complex issues where the best outcome might be counter intuitive or need advanced technical expertise which exhausted officers are not going to volunteer to provision .

I am avoiding all issues of vested interests corrupting decisions because it deflects from the real human structural problem of our system of  local government and is often more imagined than real.

Returning again to my theme. Given the context described above when an issue of civic waste disposal arises and a plausible scheme which appears to all intents and purposes to provide a practicable solution, it is not so extraordinary that a lay council seizes upon the option before them. 

Mention “recycling and its merits“, which can be easily understood when included in an election manifesto and the association with “greenness” and “energy recovery from waste” as a bonus and the average layperson is satisfied they are being constructively positive.

This I  contend  is central to the problem .The main cause of so much misinformation is the use and abuse of the semantics and language we use.

Aided and abetted by decades of public relations the expression “recycling” has come to be associated with “Green”, environmental friendly and positive action. This misnomer has become entrenched and its only in the last 10 years, with our concern and understanding of embedded carbon values, that we have come to understand how we delude ourselves with recycling as a  “comfort blanket” to offset our sense of knowing  outright consumerism is no longer tenable.

 If we reuse materials we recover the maximum embedded carbon value. Ideally we would reduce our consumption and items such as packaging would be minimised and re-useable.

We need to understand that when we dispose of an item we lose the cost/value of the carbon utilised in the manufacture of the product. 

When we demolish a building wholesale we can claim to “recycle” upward of 90% of materials but probably only recover 5-10% of the embedded carbon value. We need to up-cycle and drive the recovery process higher up the identified EU waste hierarchy .

We need to invert the hierarchy pyramid. Placing reduced consumption, reclamation and reuse above recycling and using landfill as an option of last resort storage for future extraction .

We need to up-cycle and minimise recycling.

 To bring this back to why politicians and the  public are generally confused and thereby enable the belief that ” recycling” is a panacea I would like to illustrate  the problem by reference to my experience at the time of the Stratford Olympic Games 2012

Charged, as part of the core team (3), with the task of creating a basis for a sustainable games by the World Wildlife Organisation and working for both Bio-Regional Ltd and The Hyder Corporation Sustainability Division under James Hurley, we produced a component response  to the brief which enabled the Olympic Delivery Committee to speak of a Sustainable Olympic Games in absolute terms. 

Much loud exclaiming of the virtues of our sustainable protocol followed and I enjoyed boasting of my involvement naively believing we had achieved a considerable breakthrough in national public civil engineering par excellence .

It was to maximise reuse and environmentally sustainable materials throughout. 

 Post games I received the reports of the audited outcome and with banner headlines that heralded the success of the project as 97% sustainable .

Remarkable . But How was this achieved ?

Sadly it soon became clear that by recycling materials via the conventional demolition process i.e crushing to aggregates, recycling metals and incineration for energy recovery we had achieved 94% sustainable activity.

Closer examination revealed that only 2-3 % had been reclaimed recovered ,de-constructed or reused.

Disguised as ” recycling” with the general public uncertain of the difference, when spoken quickly by politicians wishing to bathe in the implied reflected glory of the Games general success ;all was deemed to be well in Denmark.

No headlines for carbon recovery failure . But the public were persuaded they had witnessed a sustainable games and the warm glow of the recycling comfort blanket had yet again disguised the truth.

I apologise for the length of this exposition but it is complex and I have great sympathy for local authority members who strive to understand the green deception that allows negative processes to masquerade as honourable in the name of re-cycling.

If  the general public can be persuaded of the important difference between Reuse and Down-cycling (recycling) and the importance of embedded carbon  recovery become as familiar as “recycling” (down-cycling) in the popular vocabulary then we can change the playing field in favour of true environmental sustainability.

Stevetomlinsustainability.

 Dedicated to @Glosvain and their campaign team and published in haste !

Prepared as I visited the dentist in response to a Twitter conversation with @Brianat Rodboro  @Katiejarvis  @Stellaparkes following Gloucestershire local Authority Refusal of Planning permission for an Incinerator at Javelin Park.

InTransit from Astall Leigh to  Witney March 22nd 2013 

(1) Javelin Park Gloster . Unanimous refusal 

(2) MD of Reclamation Services Ltd ,which was the holding company of Masco Ltd t/as Minchinhampton Architectural Salvage Co. Astondown . During which time I was a consultant stakeholder with Bio Regional , Croydon;The Building Research Establishment, Watford; and a consultant advisor to Hyder Corps, Bristol working for Atkins T1 for The Olympic Delivery Authority. (ODA).

(3) Bio-Regional were the appointed Agent of WWO and I was a stakeholder consultant working with Jonathan Essex providing demolition recovery and reclamation advice.