Grim news for the success of recycling in England

Guest post by Dr Aidan Bell, director of EnviroBuild, a supplier of sustainable landscaping and construction materials. Please note I am not endorsing this company, but find the post of interest.

For the first time since 2010, the percentage of household waste recycled in England has fallen. The overall drop, from 44.8% in 2013/14 to 43.9% in 2014/15, might seem small, but it’s a troubling statistic nonetheless.

None of this is to say that there aren’t areas that have improved, but as you can see in our map, there are very few areas shaded green and indicating an improvement in recycling. Despite the success stories, the inconsistency in the recycling rates of England’s various local councils raises questions regarding the wisdom of giving local council complete control over recycling measures that they currently have.

Worrying signs for the future

If the fall in recycling rates was the only negative statistic to have arisen in the last couple of months, you could perhaps wave it away. However, there is at least one other significant figure that suggests our issues with recycling are deeply ingrained. As the BBC discovered, the percentage of waste put forward but rejected for recycling has risen by 84% in the past five years. Does this suggest a lack of education from councils as to what can and can’t be recycled?

Some MPs do seem to be trying to carve a path through Brexit’s environmental uncertainty. A cross-party group has recently pushed for a new Environmental Protection Act to be passed before Brexit is completed, which would maintain the UK’s environmental targets and ensure that existing EU environment law doesn’t get eroded into nothingness in the years after the UK’s exit.

Glimpses of success

It is easy to be negative in light of the most recent statistics, but there are councils out there doing a good job, and education seems to be the reason why. Richmondshire District Council was the most improved local authority, and displays a prominent banner on its site informing people of new collection days.

Similarly, high-performing Colchester Borough Council displays a big advert for their Greener Living newsletter, which encourages locals to ‘reduce waste and get involved in your local community’.

When you compare examples like these to the worst performing councils, you see a lack of similar promotional material that would encourage residents to recycle. This, in essence, is the problem that England is facing at the moment: although there are areas performing well, the lack of consistency between local authorities means that benefits and success are unlikely to be emulated beyond the borders of individual councils.

The futility of local recycling schemes

There are over 300 different recycling schemes across the UK today. That’s over 300 different ways of promoting recycling, and over 300 different lists of what can and can’t be recycled. There are at least two major problems with this segmented approach.

The lessons learned by successful local authorities are not being shared with others. On a national scale, it doesn’t matter if Richmondshire has an effective way of advertising changes to recycling collection, or if Colchester has a greener living newsletter that helps their residents live in a more environmentally friendly way, because these ideas aren’t getting used more widely.

The other major problem is the lack of consistency in what is recycled. Different local councils work with different recycling companies, which means that what is and isn’t classed as recyclable waste changes. In a time of high geographical mobility and a bombardment of information from countless sources, it is inevitable that a lot of people will be confused about what they can recycle, leading some to not bother, and others to try and recycle waste that they can’t, which wastes time and money down the line.

Thinking towards a solution

One logical solution would be to coordinate recycling guidelines on a national scale, with a single scheme in place for the whole country. It would be much easier to gain publicity for changes to a nationwide scheme, and there would never be area-by- area confusion as to what can and can’t be recycled.

Of course, there are question marks over this approach as well. Existing infrastructure isn’t identical throughout the country.  There would need to be conversations with the businesses that actually recycle the waste to decide on an optimal process and to ensure the convergence of a system. Under a government determined to slash the budget more and more for environmental issues, it is unlikely that the resources would ever be invested into a unified recycling system.  There would also be pushback from councils who would likely feel suspicious of central control and implications on their budgets.

Another mechanism that has proved successful across Europe is the principle that the polluter pays.  Manufacturers and retailers have to pay towards packaging on products: the more packaging there is, the higher the fee.

There are various solutions available, but their implementation will require political will: technology alone takes too long to implement in a fragmented market that requires large capital investment and the security of long-term policy.

If there can ever be such thing as a definitive solution, it will have to run deeper than a unified environmental policy. It would require a national commitment to good environmental education in schools and further incentives to avoid landfill.

London Council does Deal with Donald Trump’s preferred Developer for Housing Scheme

Protesters outside Wood Green Civic Centre where Haringey Council's Cabinet approved the development 

Haringey Council’s Cabinet committee in north London has confirmed that a £2 billion redevelopment housing scheme in the borough, will be carried out in partnership with the Australian building company Lend Lease. The company is the preferred construction management services company of the Trump Organisation, owned by US President Donald Trump. Lend Lease was given $200 million to redevelop The Old Post Office, in New York City, into what will be one of the newest additions to the rapidly growing Trump Hotel Collection.

The deal with the Labour run council will be 50% owned by the council and 50% owned and 100% managed by the property developer, and there is no guaranteed right of return for tenants or owners. The joint venture is known as the Haringey Development Vehicle. A final decision by the council is expected in the summer.

All of these estates in Tottenham are at risk of demolition:

Love Lane, Northumberland Park, Broadwater Farm, Somerset Close, Lido Square, Moira Close, Brookside House, Turner Avenue, Park Grove, Tredegar Road, Tunnel Gardens, Leabank and Lemsford, Reynardson Court, Imperial Wharf, Sky City and Page High.

The construction company has a chequered history, to say the least. They have admitted to a huge fraud scheme in New York, in which it overbilled clients for more than a decade and has agreed to pay $56 million in fines and restitution to avoid criminal charges. The company also admitted that it evaded government rules to hire a specified percentage of firms owned by minorities and women.

On the Old Post Office hotel development, the US Labor Department are investigating claims that that Lend Lease paid less than the minimum wage to workers on the project. “It’s yet another example of Donald Trump’s relentless hypocrisy and gross mistreatment of workers,” said Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO union federation.

Another investigation by the Labor Department is looking into similar claims where a sub-contractor employed by the Trump organisation did not pay the minimum wage to workers on another hotel construction project in Washington DC. Many of the workers have admitted to being illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico.  

On top of this an electrical contractor is suing Donald Trump's Organisation for $2 million, court documents show. The contractor, Freestate Electrical, alleges that Trump's company hasn't paid its bills for work it did on the hotel project last year.

In Australia, Lend Lease has been fined $200,000 in relation to the death of a rail worker and serious injuries suffered by four others near Maitland. The total amount of fines issued by the Industrial Court in relation to the incident is now $660,000 as well as prosecution and court costs in the thousands of dollars.

Meanwhile, closer to home in London, the £1.5 billion regeneration of the Heygate council estate in Southwark which was undertaken by Lend Lease, the council’s documents show the council only got £55m from the 22-acre site, knowing that it has already spent £43.5m on the project so far, and is expected to spend £6.6m more before the final demolition. As a comparison, the neighbouring Oakmayne/Tribeca Square development site, which is only 1.5 acre, got sold in 2011 for £40m.

Lend Lease is estimated to have made a £194m profit before any overage profit is shared with Southwark Council, whilst only 45 out of 1,000 secure tenants ever returned to the new homes which had been promised.

A report by Southwark council officers said Lend Lease baulked at providing social units as this would require a second lobby and lift shaft to separate the two types of residents, adding: “not doing so would have significant implications on the valuations of the private rental properties.”

The company also worked on the London 2012 Olympic Park. It is not known how much profit they made from the Olympics, but its profits rose by 28 per cent in 2012 - when it was built – though we know that the project cost the taxpayer £275m in total.

Haringey Council should stop pursuing this venture and choose the 100% council-owned vehicle option. This will ensure the council has 100% control of public property and land, as well as enabling the council to retain profits.

Gordon Peters of Haringey Green Party, who has launched a legal challenge against the council, said: 

“It’s what has been called social cleansing - and that is exactly what it increasingly is going to be, if not stopped.”

You can contribute towards the £4,000 cost of the Judicial Review of Haringey Council's decision here:

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/HaringeyDevelopmentVehicle?utm_id=2&utm_term=vzDRxdMN4

The Dismal Cartography of the US Pre-Fascist State - Winter in America

Points of Departure

Listening to Donald Trump’s inaugural speech on January 20th led me to muse about what it might mean to live in a pre-fascist state. After reflecting on key passages and conversations with friends, I came to the view that all the elements were in place, although set before us with the imprecision of a demagogue.

Yet I do not doubt that there are many ideologues waiting in the wings, perhaps now comfortably situated in the West Wing, ready to cover the conceptual rough spots, and supply an ideological overlay, and add the semblance of coherence.

Considering the daily outrages emanating from the White House since the inaugural jolt, the coming years will be rough riding for all of us, with many cruelties being readied for those most vulnerable.

Of course, the Woman’s March on January 21st was temporarily redemptive, and if such energy can be sustained potentially transformative. It is odd to contemplate, but there just may be tacit and effective cooperation between the national security deep state and a progressive populism converging around their divergent reasons for being deeply opposed to the shock and awe of the Trump presidency. Trump may invent ‘alternative facts’ to restore his narcissistic self-esteem, but when it comes to program he has sadly so far been true to his word! This alone should encourage a unified, energetic, and determined opposition. If the Tea Party could do it, why can’t we?

The Pre-Fascist Moment

First, it is necessary to set forth the case for viewing Trump’s Inaugural Address as a pre-fascist plea:

1. Locating power and legitimacy in the people, but only those whose support was instrumental in the election of the new president; the popular majority that were opposed are presumed irrelevant, or worse;
2. Denigrating the political class of both political parties as corrupt and responsible for the decline of the country and the hardships inflicted on his followers;
3. Presuming mass and unconditional trust in the great leader who promises a rupture with the past, and who alone will be able overcome the old established order, and produce needed changes at home and overseas;
4. Making the vision of change credible by the appointment of mainly white men, most with alt-right credentials, billionaires either blissfully ignorant about their assigned roles or a past record of opposition to the bureaucratic mission they are pledged to carry out (whether environment, energy, education, economy);
5. An endorsement of exclusionary nationalism that elevates ‘America First’ to the status of First Principle, erects a wall against its Latino neighbour, adopts a cruel and punitive stance toward Muslims and undocumented immigrants, hostility to womens’ rights, gay marriage, trans dignity, as well as posing threats to non-white minorities, inner city residents, and independent voices in the media and elsewhere;
6. Lauds the military and police as the backbone of national character, loosens protection from civilian or military abuse, which helps explain the selection of a series of generals to serve in sensitive civilian roles, as well as the revitalization of Guantanamo and the weakening of anti-torture policies.
7. The disturbing absence of a sufficiently mobilized anti-fascist opposition movement, leadership, and program. The Democratic Party has not seized the moment vigorously and creatively; progressive populist leadership has yet to emerge inspiring trust and hope; so far there are sparks but no fire.

Fortunately, there are some more encouraging tendencies that could mount anti-fascist challenges from within and below:

1. Trump lost the popular vote, casting a cloud over his claimed mandate to be the vehicle of ‘the people.’ Furthermore, his approval rating keeps falling, and is now below 40% according to reliable polls.
2. The signs of intense dissatisfaction are giving rise to protest activities that are massive and seem deeply rooted in beliefs and commitments of ordinary citizens, especially women and young people;
3. American society is not in crisis, and right-wing extremist appeals are forced to rely on a greatly exaggerated and misleading portrayal of distress in the American economy, the evils of economic globalization and unfair trade relations that are widely understood to be largely ‘fake’;
4. There are fissures within the Republican Party and governmental/think tank establishments, especially on international economic and security policy, that could produce escalating tensions within and challenges to the Trump leadership;
5. There is growing dissatisfaction within the bipartisan intelligence and national security bureaucracies as whether Trump and Trumpism can be tamed before it wrecks the post-1945 international order that rests on America’s global military presence, a global network of alliances, and a disposition toward a second cold war focused on hostility to Russia; if untamed, impeachment scenarios will soon surface, based not on the real concerns, but constructed around economic conflicts of interests, emoluments, and unlawful transactions.

Certainly in my lifetime, with the possible exception of the Great Depression, America has not been tested as it is now. Maybe not since the American Civil War has so much been at stake, and put at risk.

Traditional reliance on political parties and elections will not be helpful until the political climate is radically altered by forces from below and without or above and within. It is strange, but the two main forces of resistance to the pre-fascist reality menacing the country’s and the world’s future are progressive populism as evident in the widespread grassroots protest movement taking shape in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s ascension to the presidency, and the deep state as exhibited by the anti-Trump defection of intelligence and national security specialists from both Republican and Democratic ranks during and after the recent presidential campaign.

Finally, the depiction of the present political reality as ‘pre-fascist’ rather than ‘fascist’ is crucial to this effort to depict accurately the historical moment associated with Donald Trump’s formal induction as the 45th president of the United States.

To speak as if the United States is a fascist state is to falsify the nature of fascism, and to discredit critical discourse by making it seem hysterical. There is no doubt that the pieces are in place that might facilitate a horrifying transition from pre-fascism to fascism, and it could happen with lightning speed. It is also sadly true that the election of Donald Trump makes fascism a sword of Damocles hanging by a frayed thread over the American body politic.

Yet we should not overlook the quite different realities that pertain to pre-fascism.
It remains possible in the United States to organize, protest, and oppose without serious fears of reprisals or detentions. The media can expose, ridicule, and criticize without closures or punitive actions, facing only angered and insulting Trump tweets, although such a backlash should not be minimized as it could have a dangerous intimidating impact on how the news is reported.

We are in a situation where the essential political challenge is to muster the energy and creativity to construct a firewall around constitutional democracy as it now exists in the United States, and hope that a saner, more humane political mood leads quickly and decisively to repudiate those policies and attitudes that flow from this pre-fascist set of circumstances.

Richard Falk is an American professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. He just completed a six-year term as United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

This article originally appeared on Transnational.org.

I will leave you with Gil Scott Heron singing Winter in America, from 1975.

To Solve the Housing Crisis Local Authorities Must be Allowed to Build Homes for Rent

The release of the government’s white paper on housing last week, has been fairly well received, in as much as it at least acknowledges the depth of the problem and proposes an increase in building homes specifically for rent. These new rental properties will be either privately owned or owned by housing associations, not by local authorities, who have been barred from building homes since the 1980s.

Where councils have been given new powers they relate to planning permission for building homes and to restrict what has become known as ‘landbanking’ by developers. This means it will be easier for councils to force developers to build on their land in the shorter term, rather than waiting until house prices rise to a level where the developer makes large profits, by restricting supply.

In England as a whole, the union the GMB found, households have been increasing by an average of 218,316 per year since 2010 and over the same period the net additional dwellings have only increased by 148,993 per year. In London in the last six years new homes have only been 41.8% of the number of new households formed in the same period.

These new powers will help to alleviate some of the supply side problems and it will encourage the development of new private rental housing with longer, more secure tenancies, backed by institutional investors. (Unlike individual buy-to-let landlords, pension funds are unlikely to refuse to replace a broken boiler, say, on the grounds that they can’t afford it.) It’ll also ban letting agent fees. And it’ll introduce banning orders, to force the worst landlords and agents out of the market.

Presumably some of these new rental homes will be priced at ‘affordable rents’, but this term is misleading. Affordable rents are defined as at 80% of the market rate, which for many people, especially in London, are way out of the reach.

Even Grant Shapps the Tory ex housing minister was scathing. “Housing ministers over the years have come out with documents or bills, and the truth is none of them are going to make much difference,” he said. “And I don’t suppose this will make that much difference either.”

The glaring omission in the white paper is the complete absence of repealing the restrictions on local authorities building of new council housing and the continuation of ‘the right to buy’ whereby councils are forced into selling off what is left of their housing stock to tenants. Almost half of former council houses and flats in Wandsworth in south London, are now owned by private landlords, often very wealthy individuals.

Why does the government not allow councils to build new homes, when it would be the quickest way to resolve the crisis? Remember too, that interest rates on borrowing are at a historic low, which makes it a cheap option, and these homes would become an income stream for cash strapped councils, for maybe 200 years. Secure tenancies, faster availability and more income for councils, what is not to like?

Well, the government’s ideology will not allow them to take up this approach. It would buck the trend of the last 30 odd years, the so called ‘property owning democracy’ introduced by Margaret Thatcher. But as we see, this applies mainly to selling off public housing to private landlords, not the tenants in the long run, and has led us directly to the crisis in housing we have today.

When the market has failed so spectacularly as it has with housing, what we do not need is more market. It only makes sense viewed through the prism of neo-liberal ideology, when plain common sense tells us it is all nonsense.

Expect things to carry on pretty as much as normal, with increasing numbers of people being priced out of housing in some areas, as the gentrification of former council estates carries on, in an exercise in class cleansing of London and some of our other bigger cities.

Where all of the essential low paid workers will live, is anyone's guess?