Categories
voting

Pre-Nov 4th e-voting roundup

Comment and speculation around the US voting system is quickly reaching fever pitch. I really fear for election day, I hope we don't see any disasters which undermine the result or even prevent it being declared. However I fear that is what we will indeed see. Regardless everyone needs to work in a spirit of openness to make sure all problems are understood and resolved in the fairest way possible. Such an attitude isn't on show in my first link…

  • Russell Michaels and Simon Ardizzone, the producers/directors of “Hacking Democracy” have produced an excellent new, short documentary highlighing some more of the serious problems in the US electoral system, particularly in Florida. For the first time they show how any election administrator can manually alter the vote in the Premier (aka Diebold) GEMS system. Part 1 and Part 2 are on YouTube. I believe a Hacking Democracy DVD is now available too.

  • There is now an iPhone application 'Twitter VoteReport' to help you report problems on polling day. It's a great idea to increase the number and consistency of reports. via TUAW

  • I recently participated in a short radio interview for PRI's “The World” on e-voting around the world. You can listen online here

  • I've found Barack Obama's online campaigning insprirational, though I certainly don't agree with all of his politics, there's plenty to admire. His story is a remarkable one, as is his campaign's purchase of air time for a 30 minute television programme on the major US networks. Unimaginable for us Europeans really. You can watch what the money went on via YouTube.

  • It wasn't a surprise, but Michael Wills MP has confirmed that there wil be no e-voting in the UK next year. My TheyWorkForYou alerts flagged this up as effectively as ever, and ORG have blogged it.

Categories
notes from JK

Nuclear: No kind of solution

Nuclear Power Station

This week I was delighted to read a new argument against an expansion in the use of nuclear powe. I've long opposed nuclear power and certainly am very much against the so called 'pragmatism' of expanding atomic energy to help meet climate change targets. The arguments against have always been clear-cut in my mind:

  • Nuclear power is hugely expensive, and is usually subsidised at eye watering tax-payer expense. Even with such subsidies there is debate whether it is truly price competitive if one factors in all the costs of extracting, transporting, processing and disposing of the uranium used in nuclear power stations.

  • Nuclear waste is an unsolved problem, most countries are using temporary facilities whilst a laborious process of trying to find a place to leave the waste long enough to let it stop being dangerously radioactive. This is a growing problem that will hang over generations to come. Why create such a risk for our children's children?

  • Nuclear power as a whole is a safety and health risk to workers and us, the public. Furthermore continued development and production of nuclear power technologies only serve to further the chances of a proliferation in nuclear weapons.

  • Nuclear power stations take a long time to build and come online. They perpetuate the centralised, long distance transmission model of electrical grids which waste huge amounts of energy through transport. They are the wrong type of approach to solve our clean energy needs and we could never get enough online in time to significantly reduce global emissions anyway.

  • Uranium is not a renewable fuel. It's dug out of the ground… Why depend on a fuel like that when the sun, wind and waves are free and never ending?

Nuclear danger icon

Further to this final point, Daniel Botkin wrote “The limits of nuclear power” a comment piece in the International Herald Tribune. In it he argues that if we could build enough nuclear power stations to replace all fossil fuels then on known available uranium reserves we would run out in less than five years. Including all known sources of uranium, even those deemed not viable for mining, Botkin says we would run out in 29 years.

To a more realistic scenario, increasing nuclear energy yearly so that by 2050 50% of world energy was nuclear. Botkin calculates that uranium would run out in 2019 (using available reserves figure) or 2038 (all known uranium).

He also notes that 'breeder' reactors, which generate more fuel than they use, are not viable yet and are dangerous.

So even if we run headlong to nuclear power it barely gives us any breathing room. And there are carbon costs in the construction of these behemoth stations. Much better to stick to renewables which can generate local electricity without the costs and inefficiences of distribution.

Nuclear power still isn't, and never has been, any kind of answer.

Categories
voting

E-voting update, October 08

  • I recently had the priviledge of being invited to participate in PressTV's Cinepolitics programme reviewing the US e-voting film, 'Uncounted'. The film struggles to make the pieces fit together, though there are some strong moments. If you haven't seen it then I would hands-down recommend 'Hacking Democracy' over 'Uncounted'. You can view the episode of Cinepolitics below:

Categories
notes from JK

Wrong bins in the wrong way

Jason by an overflowing communal bin

I believe the proposal for communal bins that Brighton & Hove’s Tory Administration waved through at their Cabinet Meeting last night is the wrong proposal being put forward in the wrong way. I’m not against communal bins on principle – but these ones in this way are not what our city needs.

Their introduction follows a flawed consultation process which did not meet the Cabinet Office’s code of practice for consultations — which applies to local authorities as much as it does to ministers. The consultation was run for barely a month when the minimum time set down by the code is 12 weeks. The code requires consultations to be provided online but this one wasn’t. A number of my constituents never received the consultation or saw only one for a building with multiple households. Allowing online responses could have helped remedy this.

More fundamentally however the Conservative communal bins do not deal with the key challenges waste and street tidyness pose for our city. Of course I want to see cleaner streets – who doesn’t? But I keep seeing and keep receiving photos of existing communal bins attracting mess, fly tipping, dumping and graffiti.

Binvelopes (the foldable containers to protect bin bags from attack by foxes and seagulls) were ruled out as being only a short term measure yet just a few weeks ago the use of binvelopes was expanded in the Hanover part of our city. How can they make sense there but not in Regency ward?

The nub of the matter lies with recycling however. There is already a problem with the existing communal bins — whenever I pass and look in I see lots of recyclables amidst the bin bags: cardboard, paper, glass, plastics. Surely it’s human nature to go for the path of least resistance. If people don’t have space to store rubbish in their flats then the same applies for recyclables. Yet the council expects residents to sit on recyclables for a week but chuck rubbish whenever they like into the big communal bins which are emptied six days a week.

A 2004 University of Brighton study commissioned by the council examined the waste in the communal bins trial. The study found that 42% of the waste in the bins was recyclable (under the current, quite limited recycling scheme available) and a further 21% was food based waste. This was in an areas where weekly kerbside recycling was already in operation.

So we know that 63% of the waste in the bins could be dealt with in alternative ways. We are told a new waste strategy is being developed to bolster our weak recycling levels. We have expanded recycling facilities coming online shortly that will be able to process a wider range of materials than ever before. So why rush the bins in before all this and risk taxpayer money on increasing landfill charges as recyclables are chucked out?

I also feel that the administration have not been sensitive in locating these bins. I have had correspondence from some residents extremely distressed by the thought of having smelly, noisy bins outside their homes possibly blocking their natural light. We have many streets in beautiful conservation areas that house a low density population which are clearly opposed to having these bins. The council’s conservation policy and local plan both clearly put a duty on the council to ‘preserve or enhance the character or appearance’ of our conservation areas and so we should allow opt-outs for the sake of our most beautiful streets and when residents clearly won’t support the scheme.

In summary, we have a proposal that is based on:

  • A flawed consultation,
  • doesn’t deal with mess but attracts it,
  • isn’t sensitive to conservation areas and won’t allow opt-outs,
  • and rips the heart out of our recycling programme — 63% of the waste in the communal bins could have been dealt with by recycling and composting.

I would like to see a new plan which isn’t rushed ahead of the waste strategy — who heard of implementation before the strategy is written? Show me a plan which properly considers the human, conservation and environmental impacts of its proposals and I’ll happily support it.

Cllr Theobald claimed that his plans would have ‘No negative impact on recycling’ and so there would be no additional landfill tax liability. This flies in the face of the council’s own studies.

Yes, we need cleaner streets. But we urgently need to recycle far more than we do today – this was the wrong proposal in the wrong way.

Categories
current affairs

Free at the point of access?

At first glance, there's a sense of justice in the Scottish Government's decision to eliminate parking charges at NHS Hospitals in Scotland. Yes, there are exceptions for privately financed car parks, once again PFI narrowing government choices in favour of private profit.

But does removing parking charges really make health care free at the point of access? No, of course not. Cars have running costs: fuel, insurance, maintenance and so on — parking is just the most obvious cost drivers encounter. Bus users have tickets to pay for, as do those on the train. Cycling is close to free as bike maintenance costs are extremely low – but if you're ill you probably don't feel like biking in to hospital. Walking is truly cost-free but again not likely to be an option for many patients.

So eliminating parking costs has a number of consequences that I can see: It reduces but doesn't eliminate the cost of car travel to hospitals, it reduces the annual costs for employees that drive to work, plus free parking for visitors and local residents has now been provided.

Opening up parking facilities in this way could have significant and unintended negative consequences to local traffic and parking. I know it would in Brighton & Hove.

If you are rushing to hospital paying for parking is the last thing you need to worry about. But why shouldn't others in non urgent situations, visitors and staff, pay for the cost of parking if they choose to take a car when other options are available to them?

Categories
current affairs

The Kingsnorth Trial

I am astounded and delighted by the result of the Kingsnorth Trial as reported in The Guardian. Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage by successfully arguing that they were trying to protect us from the greater damage that climate change will cause.

Among the arguments fielded by Greenpeace:

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emits the same amount of CO2 as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined…

This is astonishing and embarassing. We have the technology and skills to eliminate the need for this carbon monster, yet the government want to build another coal-fired station next door. It's a completely unjustified and frankly reckless proposal that not only jeopardises our emissions targets but also undermines our ability to argue for strong action on the global stage.

Greenpeace have pulled off a real coup with this successful protest and court action – I'm sure a huge amount of hard work went into this so congratulations!

Categories
current affairs

A new era in Green Politics

The moment the leadership result was declared

This past weekend's Green Party conference in central London marked a significant turning point in the party's fortunes. We now have a leader after years of noble but ultimately flawed attempts to support a number of alternative structures for presenting the public face of the party, most recently with the two gender-balanced Principle Spokespeople.

Caroline Lucas MEP was overwhelmingly elected as the Green Party of England & Wale's first leader with Cllr Adrian Ramsay her deputy. They have been elected to positions unlike any other leadership posts in British politics: They must be re-elected every two years, with a limit of five terms and are subject to a recall procedure by members. Leaders, yes, but not in the overbearing way of the other parties.

From the moment of the leadership election result being declared on the Friday evening of conference we could see the electrifying impact of the change. Media coverage of the party was much higher with Caroline and Adrian getting significant space on TV, radio and print media. Furthermore an impressive array of candidates, committed to working for the success of the new streamlined party structures, stood for the national party executive.

A rising cost of living, energy costs continually in the news, an unstable climate, broken government commitments to reducing our carbon emissions and increasing concern about the health impact our 'modern' lifestyles are making the Green Party's unique perspective relevant to a rapidly growing number of people.

I hope that this will signal a surge in Green support in the coming couple of years. I'll remember that London, Autumn 2008 was when it took off. You'll be able to keep track of our progress on the re-launched national party website and on the new Green Home blogging centre for Green bloggers both launched at conference.

Categories
technology

Larry’s the Daddy

Makes me wish I wasn’t already an ORG member, just so I can write Larry’s the Daddy. If you aren’t then join ORG for digital rights, civil liberties and solidarity with some truly wonderful people…

The next five people who sign up to support our work and include “Larry’s the Daddy” in the ‘how did you hear about’ field will receive, along with our growing list of support benefits, a signed copy of Remix.

Full ORG blog post

Categories
current affairs

UK: A future leader in landfill mining?

Landfill

I’ve often toyed with setting a short story in a future where we mine our waste for all the useful things we chuck out without thought. Well the future is here, as the IHT reports:

In Britain alone, experts say landfill sites could offer an estimated 200 million tons of old plastic – worth up to £60 billion, or $111 billion, at current prices – to be recovered and recycled, or converted to liquid fuel.

The report goes on to say that this October London will be hosting the first “global landfill mining” conference. We’ve made mistakes in the past, been foolish and lazy in how waste has been handled but we’ve got no excuses now – the technology and knowledge are widespread. Better to not have plastic packaging in the first place, but when we do it’s totally crazy to send it to landfill only to dig it up again!

Brighton & Hove is a recycling laggard both in terms of the range of materials we recycle and also in terms of percentage of total waste. We don’t need to lecture residents, we need to re-organise our waste system to make recycling the new default, easy thing to do.

Categories
current affairs

The Clintons deliver

Bill Clinton at Democratic Convention 2008

Both Hillary and Bill have delivered speeches well beyond what duty required of them. Losing the primary was undoubtedly a bitter pill to swallow but it barely showed in Hilary's speech, and Bill once again reminded us of his incredible skills as a political communicator.

Certainly there's plenty of Democratic policy I find too timid, but they're fighting a different election to a very different audience to the one I'm used to here. Bill Clinton's speech is concise, exquisitely timed and summarises positions with a rare clarity and simplicity.

You can watch it in its entirety (not the hatchet edits news sites are showing) on the Convention's own site.

UPDATE: Jon Naughton adds his own thoughts in a similarly complimentary vein citing Dave Winer's praise also (and Mr Winer was there).