Rewild the Child , George Monbiot.

Link here:                                  Rewild the Child


This is how it starts:


A week in the countryside is worth three months in a classroom.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 8th October 2013
What is the best way to knacker a child’s education? Force him or her to spend too long in the classroom.
An overview of research into outdoor education by King’s College London found that children who spend time learning in natural environments “perform better in reading, mathematics, science and social studies.”(1) Exploring the natural world “makes other school subjects rich and relevant and gets apathetic students excited about learning.”

My own experience confirms all this. As a member of the Somerset Wildlife Trust and our local wildlife Group the experience opens up a view of the world which is fascinating and leads into many other avenues of life . All our activities are open to young people especially our Watch Club.

As a member of Langport Runners , assisting in the management of our Junior Athletic Club I am constantly amazed at the enthusiasm of our young members. Recently we have been involving them as much as possible in the coaching sessions so that older 14 year olds can act as Leaders for some of the time. It works very well.

I cant explain it as well as George  so please read his article and use the link above.

The Providential Principle

Here is a link to the latest George Monbiot article discussing the way our present Government deals with important matters impacting on the natural environment. Its all about the Precautionary Principle which I have considered to be a starting point for almost any serious action we take in life. But thats just being cautious  of course and many people dont  think that way!




The Providential Principle

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The Providential Principle Posted: 01 May 2013 03:33 AM PDT Amazingly, the UK government has not defined the precautionary principle and appears to have no idea what it is. By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 1st May 2013 Here’s something remarkable I stumbled across while researching my column on Monday, but did not have room to include. I hope you’ll agree that it is worth sharing. I was trying to understand the context for the new chief scientist’s cavalier treatment of scientific evidence, in an article he wrote opposing a European ban on neonicotinoid pesticides. These are the toxins which, several studies suggest, could be partly responsible for the rapid decline in bees and other pollinators. Just one month into the job, Sir Mark Walport has, I believe, disgraced himself: by misrepresenting the science, misinforming the public about risk and uncertainty and indulging in scaremongering and wild exaggeration in support of the government’s position. I believe he has seriously damaged his standing and that of the office he holds. Among the many problems with the article he wrote was the way he defined the precautionary principle. Interpreting and upholding this principle is fundamental to the chief scientist’s role. Yet he doesn’t seem to understand what it means. Here’s what he said about it: “This simple idea just means working out and balancing in advance all the risks and benefits of action or inaction, and to make a proportionate response.” Oh yes? Here’s how the Rio Declaration, which the UK, with 171 other states, signed in 1992, defines it: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The difference is critical to an understanding of the government’s environmental responsibilities. As if to underline the fact that he hasn’t grasped it, Sir Mark used his article to do the opposite: he used a lack of full scientific certainty as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The precautionary principle, as defined by the Rio Declaration, has, in the words of the European Commission, “become a full-fledged and general principle of international law.” In other words, it’s not something you would expect a chief scientist to make up as he goes along. So the question that occurred to me was this. If the government’s chief scientist doesn’t know what the precautionary principle is, does the government know? www.monbiot.com

Advertising and Wildlife

This is an interesting view on a major influence on our efforts to conserve wild life. Please read the full article in the Guardian to see George's argument in full. The title below should link to the article. Our problems in wildlife conservation are all linked to the demands put on our environment by our human demands for endless development, growth and prosperity. Advertising must make it harder to find a sensible balance. George Monbiot gets to the heart of a big issue as usual. Posted: 24 Oct 2011 12:25 PM PDT Extracts. Advertising trashes our happiness and trashes the planet. And my income depends on it. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 24th October 2011 We think we know who the enemies are: banks, big business, lobbyists, the politicians who exist to appease them. But somehow the sector which stitches this system of hypercapitalism together gets overlooked. I am talking about the industry whose output frames this column and pays for it: advertising. For obvious reasons, it is seldom confronted by either the newspapers or the broadcasters. Advertising claims to enhance our choice, but it offers us little choice about whether we see and hear it, and ever less choice about whether we respond to it. Since Edward Bernays began to apply the findings of his uncle Sigmund Freud, advertisers have been developing sophisticated means of overcoming our defences(3). In public they insist that if we become informed consumers and school our children in media literacy we have nothing to fear from their attempts at persuasion. In private they employ neurobiologists to find ever more ingenious methods of bypassing the conscious mind.

Confused about Government Policy ? Planning Law

In a recent post I quoted the CPRE views on proposed changes to planning laws.

I've just read an article by George Monbiot on the subject and as usual he makes some good points on the subject.
Here is a taster of what he says.

"Economic growth should not be the purpose of the planning system. It should ensure that human needs are met while the environment is protected. But if growth is your aim, strong planning is more likely to deliver it than weak planning. The government’s attack on planning is likely to deliver the worst of both worlds: trashing the environment while trashing the economy."


I recommend a read of the article which you can see by clicking  here 

George Monbiot on the value of nature

George has made some interesting comments on the National Ecosystem Assessment referred to in my last post. I recommend your read the whole article in the Guardian newspaper.
Here are a few quotes to wet your appetite.

An Answer to the Meaning of Life

Posted: 06 Jun 2011 01:07 PM PDT

The well-intentioned dolts putting a price on nature are delivering it into the hands of business.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 7th June 2011

"Under the last government, the Department for Transport announced that it had discovered “the real value of time”. Here’s the surreal sentence in which this bombshell was dropped: “Forecast growth in the real value of time is shown in Table 3.”

Last week the Department for Environment announced the results of its National Ecosystem Assessment, a massive exercise involving 500 experts. The assessment, it tells us, establishes “the true value of nature … for the very first time.”(2) If you thought the true value of nature was the wonder and delight it invoked, you’re wrong."

"How do they calculate these values? The report tells us that the “ecosystem services” it assesses include “recreation, health and solace”, and natural spaces “in which our culture finds its roots and sense of place”"

"Cost-benefit analysis is systematically rigged in favour of business. Take, for example, the decision-making process for transport infrastructure. The last government developed an appraisal method which almost guaranteed that new roads, railways and runways would be built, regardless of the damage they might do or the paltry benefits they might deliver(8). The method costs people’s time according to how much they earn, and uses this cost to create a value for the development. So, for example, it says the market price of an hour spent travelling in a taxi is £45, but the price of an hour spent travelling by bicycle is just £17, because cyclists tend to be poorer than taxi passengers"

"Its assumptions are utterly illogical. For example, commuters are deemed to use all the time saved by a new high speed rail link to get to work earlier, rather than to live further away. Rich rail passengers are expected to do no useful work on trains, but to twiddle their thumbs and stare vacantly out of the window throughout the journey. This costing system explains why successive governments want to invest in high-speed rail rather than cycle lanes, and why multi-billion pound road schemes which cut two minutes off your journey are deemed to offer value for money(10). None of this is accidental: the cost-benefit models governments use excite intense interest from business lobbyists. Civil servants with an eye on lucrative directorships in their retirement ensure that the decision-making process is rigged in favour of over-development."

I'm not sure I agree entirely with George. The whole subject needs some thought

Convention on Biological Diversity

 This post is a follow up to my previous post.

 The UN web site shows links to what it calls "Advanced unedited text" which I not going to try to follow or give extracts. If your interested you can just follow the link below.
There clearly is information available and probably there are so many changes and amendments to the first drafts that it will take some time for the Secretariat to produce a final set of documents.
In that respect George is correct.
Trying to follow the thread through UN documents is a challenge all on its own!

Convention on Biological Diversity

Monbiot.com » A Ghost Agreement

 As a sobering foot note to the press accounts of the success of the recent UNEP Convention on Biological  Diversity in Nagoya ,the link shown below paints a more worrying picture. Next I'll follow up by visiting the UNEP web site to see what they are making available


Monbiot.com » A Ghost Agreement