But there is one thing that is consistent in Whitehall spending, it is the obscene amounts they insist on wasting on furniture. A few years news got out that when the Ministry of Defence moved buildings, they also got new office furniture, including office chairs costing £3000 EACH. At the time no one really batted an eye lid, we were a growing economy that showed no sign of meltdown. Roll on 2008.

Now that the world is in economic collapse and our governments are spending Billions (if not Trillions) bailing out our banks so society doesn’t fall apart, we started to pay a bit more attention to where our money was going. Last year the expenses scandal revealed to us all just how greedy, ignorant, unfair and downright stupid politicians could be, with claims for items such as Duck houses, Moat cleaners and toilet seats.

But if you think that because we are now in a recession that the wasteful spending has ended then think again. A new investigation from the new Coalition Government into Whitehall spending has found that Labour ministers authorised officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government to to buy 28 of the sofas at a cost of £4,120 EACH. That’s a total of £134,503.

If you think that is bad then wait until you hear how they (tried to) justify it. The luxury sofas were intended to create a “peaceful oasis” in the workplace in part of a an efficiency initiative called “SpaceFlex” to make the department “more practical” and save money. A source at the department said the red sofas made the office seem like a “Parisian boudoir” and pointed out that council tax bills had more than doubled under Labour. Anyone that thinks spending £4,120 on a sofa will help saving money needs to get there head examined and banned from working anywhere near the government!

Everyone involved with this decision has failed people they serve (us) massively whilst working in the public sector and should be out of a job. Spending on luxury items anywhere in the government should not exist until the deficit is paid off, we have perfect healthcare, a policing and criminal justice system that works, political reform, modern transport and decent education for everybody.

After all this, we now have to pay off a debt of over £900 Billion. A debt that we will all contribute to in one way or another in painful cuts over the coming years and months. Well government, they better start on your doorstep. If not we will be there banging down the door.

Their efforts to solve the problem have been as ridiculous as the methods in this video to clean up spilt coffee.

“We understand the current situation in India. We should take adaptation and mitigation measures based on our national conditions and capacity. China and India are both developing countries and victims of climate change.  The two countries do not have the obligation to binding emission reduction targets on climate change.”

India has refused to accept binding emission cuts that it says could slow its economic growth and has instead harped on voluntary actions to stem emissions.

“Voluntary actions of developing nations will be subject to international monitoring, report and verification (MRV) as per agreed procedures to the extent that these actions receive international support” Claims Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

Yesterday, in the wake of a breakdown of talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Primeminister Gordon Brown stepped down from his role, opening the door for Conservative leader David Cameron to essentially take control of the country. After Brown yesterday announced that he was to step down as Labour leader, all expected to see a Labour – Lib Dem Coalition to take control of parliament. But before it became apparent that talks between the two parties had failed, Brown announced that he was conceding leadership and was off to see the queen. Less than 2 hours later and we have a new Primeminister in David Cameron. Less than another 2 hours later and we have a new cabinet. That’s British Politics.

So we now have a Commander in Chief that only 34,000 people voted for. That is the 34,000 people in his constituency of Witney. No one else voted for him. Only 36% of the country voted for his party. And this is supposed to be democracy. The country voted for no single party, so that means the people we did not vote into power get to make up their own mind about who runs the country. It’s the system that is broken, not the country.

I am however glad to see Nick Clegg taking an important role as the Deputy Primeminister. I am also glad to see him apparently getting on with Cameron, dispute my personal opinions of him. No body wants to see a dysfunctional government. I am glad to see what is hopefully the end of Peter Mandleson. William Hague as foreign secretary? Is that really the impression you want to give to the world? New Equality Minister Theresa May voted against the repeal of section 28.  And Osborne for chancellor? No thanks. If you are actually serious about combating the deficit, then why are you going to spend £100 billion on replacing the ageing Trident Nuclear missiles? I WILL NOT continue to live in a country that would rather spend that much money on something that can only be used to kill thousands of people, than on health-care or schooling or public services. We do not need nuclear weapons. Period.

The one good thing that could come from this is a compromise of the all the voiced of the British people might be achieved. But it’s early days, and it has never worked before and is unlikely to now. In the run up to the election, the Tories had almost opposite views to the Lib Dems. Are we supposed to believe that they can now run a country in harmony? We can only hope.

We don’t need electoral reform. We need social political reform. Will we get it? No. Because that’s not what politicians do and that is certainly not what Conservatism is about.

Conservative: “Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”

A vote for change my arse. Enjoy the furniture in No.10 Cameron. Who knows how long you will sit there. Cold War Kids – Hospital Beds

The US has avoided Nuclear power since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, an accident that was caused by the partial core meltdown of one of the reactors at the site in Pennsylvania, which resulted in a release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere. The move ticks many of the boxes of Obama’s agenda, helping to reduce emissions and prevent climate change whilst ensuring a more secure energy future, as well as creating jobs.

According to BBC News just one nuclear plant will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared with a similar coal plant. It won’t persuade all the environmentalists, but it is an argument that does weigh heavily with some of them. Nuclear Power stations have much less emissions that conventional coal power stations, but can still lead to environmental damage when disposing of nuclear waste.

“To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It’s that simple.” President Obama

There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors across 31 states in the US, which provide about a fifth of the country’s electricity. Meanwhile, there are currently 56 new nuclear reactors being built around the world.

For politicians, the appeal of spending billions on acting on climate change is not great at a time when most of their economies are still shrinking. This is perhaps the key subtext as to why the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was a complete failure. Now the New Economics Foundation (Nef) has released a new report claiming that global economic growth “is not possible” if nations are to tackle climate change. The report also claims that only “unprecedented and probably impossible” carbon reductions would be needed to hold temperature rises below 2C.

“We urgently need to change our economy to live within its environmental budget. There is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out if we become ecologically bankrupt.”

As bleak as it sounds, it does not mean we are all doomed. It simply means that if we carry on as the way things are, we are doomed. This is a fact. Western economies are built on a lie, that you can consume the worlds recourse as much as you like for as long as you like. The blueprints of our economies are unsustainable: fact. Continuing to ignore this fact will be the end of us, but seems to be the number one priority for politicians and business leaders. Our economies simply cannot keep growing forever. We are trapped in a cycle of boom and bust and sooner or later the busts will become too big to fix.

The report concluded that for a economic growth rate of just 3%, the carbon emissions of the global economy would need to fall by 95% by 2050 from 2002 levels. This would require an average annual reduction of 6.5%. “Magic bullets – such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even geo-engineering – are potentially dangerous distractions from more human-scale solutions”

The only way to prevent dangerous climate change is to fix our broken economic system. We could have economic growth whilst preventing climate change, but with the current system we can have only neither. It may well be in most individuals personal interests to continue to ignore these facts but it is in humanities best interest that we go back to the drawing board and design a system that works for everybody and our planet.

After months of discussion and the climax of the climate change talks in Copenhagen, US President Barack Obama proclaimed that a meaningful deal had been reached to the worlds press. Good news yes? Well it would be if it were true. Here is what was actually achieved in Copenhagen:

193 countries “recognize the scientific view that” they need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

Thats about it… There is NO legally binding agreement to any country on any further actions on curbing emissions or contributions to climate change. The deal “promises” to deliver $30bn (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years, despite UN recommendations that rich countries provide $100 billion per year in aid to developing nations most vulnerable to climate change.

The implementation of the dubbed “Copenhagen Accord” will be reviewed 2015, about a year-and-a-half after the next scientific assessment of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So what does this mean for us and for climate change? Well quite frankly it means nothing. It is certainly as far from a “meaningful deal” as you could possibly get. After climate change has been so vigorously shoved into the limelight, it is likely to go quiet over the next few years, until we hear the updated statistics and forecasts from the IPCC in 4 years time. With the worlds economy in the state it is in right now, you can bet that we will see little if no effort by major polluters between now and 2015 of becoming greener, as in the eyes of world leaders and business CEO’s, the inconvenience of adapting to greener ways is far too costly to bother, when they will face no punishment for failing to act now.

I have said it many times, world leaders and big business leaders (who often arguably have more power) prioritize economies and making money over human lives and quality of life. As long as they do this taking action on climate change is too big a risk to take. When you reverse it and value the people of this world over businesses and money the way it should be, not taking action on climate change now is too big a risk to take. It’s a sad world we live in.

Recent reports of China’s “commitment” to reducing its massive contribution to climate changing pollution by reducing carbon emissions has been welcomed by some as a heads up prior to the United Nations Conference focusing on climate change in Copenhagen during December 2009

‘Beijing said it would aim to reduce its “carbon intensity” by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels.’

Can we trust China?

It is incredible how many people continue to believe in the lies and and are fooled by the deceptive games the Chinese regime continues to play with the world.

China is still a poor country (money-wise). But if there is no control of the pollution in China, their next generation will suffer not only poor health conditions but also a possible poorer economics too (think about the rising health care spending’s and less working population due to the poor health condition).

It has been widey reported that China has been building many coal fired power plants over the past few years. No details about the types of plants or their efficiency. New coal fired plants in the USA are higher efficiency plants than those built 40 years ago (and cost substantially more to build).

It is possible that China is “stacking the deck” by building many lower-technology lower-cost inefficient plants; this will make it relatively easy for them to substantially reduce emissions: replace these new but inefficient plants with newer plants that have higher efficiency.

Effects of Climate Change

It is good to see that the Chinese government finally realize pollution control is for the sake of its own destiny as well.  Let’s  just hope they have realistic and effective polices to back these goals up.  The effects of climate change are already being recorded in China with warnings that the Yangtze delta, China’s most populous river needs massive investment and careful planning to ease the impact of climate change, which is causing floods, droughts and storms to intensify, a new report (pdf) said today.

But what will be achieved? There are two sides to the conference. Developed Nations and Developing Nations. Developed Nations are those such as USA, Britain and rich western nations, that essentially became developed threw their mass consumption of fossil fuels over the past 2 centuries. Developing Nations are countries such as China and India and many other poorer nations that historically have emitted much less climate warming gasses emitted from burning fossil fuels. But these developing nations need to continue to use fossil fuels to power their economies to bring their people out of poverty. Whereas developed nations already have a much higher percentage of their population living a better quality of life.

Only a deal on a global scale will do, Developing countries like China and India are already fast becoming the worlds largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. But these countries argue that they are less historically responsible for climate change, having emitted less over time than developed countries such as the USA. As a result China and India will not sign a deal that prevents them from continuing to grow over the coming decades, claiming the USA and other developed countries should make up for their historical responsibility and face harsher restrictions. Naturally the USA will not sign any agreement that will damage themselves economically such as capping emissions from their businesses. Which brings us to what this conference will really be about: Money.

The problem with the political system is money. Money is power. Politicians will not make any decisions without putting their economy first. Over half the world still lives in poverty. Millions don’t even have food to eat or clean water to drink. Yet world leaders spent Trillions of Dollars, Pounds and Euro’s propping up failed businesses in fear their collapse would damage their economies, there for damaging their power. A tiny fraction of the money spent bailing out the banks could have ended world hunger. The grand sum could have ended poverty for Millions if not Billions of people. So we now live in a world where out banks, full of stuff that doesn’t really exist, are put before people. But not only people, the planet and everything on it.

The reason a deal (or at least a deal that actually meets the recommendations of climate scientists) is unlikely is simply because the decisions are up to politicians. Politicians who care only about how damaging a emissions cap may be to their economies. But if by some miracle a appropriate deal is achieved, money lost from damages economies will likely be recouped by increasing taxes, so it is us the people who really pay the price, at a time where we will be also be paying off the debt of the banking system that failed us. Which leads me on to the real cause of climate change.

Over-consumption is all around us and exists with nearly everything we do. Over-consumption is the simple fact that most of the worlds resources are finite. The fact of the matter is we consumer far more than we give back to the world. The society we live in is unsustainable, just like the banking system, when we carry on consuming more than is created. So that is essentially the biggest problem we face, so why aren’t politicians doing anything about it? Because it is consumption that is the fuel that drives their economies and gives them more power. When asked what the American people should do the day after the September 11th attacks, G.W Bush replied simply “Shop”.

99% of everything purchased in the United States is consumed or thrown away within 6 months. These things need resources to make, and massive amounts of power to manufacture, power that comes from fossil fuels that in turn further warm the climate.

The problem of Over-consumption is a problem that simply has to be solved, now or when its too late. A small step to reduce over-consumption could in reality eclipse any actions on reducing emissions that are likely to come out of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. But it wont happen. Why? Because Over-Consumption makes the resources we use in every day life finite. If its finite you can regulate the cost of it, simply supply and demand. If there is less of something and more people want/need it, it is worth more than if its plentiful.

This is why oil companies purposely do not dig for new oil until their reserve levels are very low, because they less they have available, the more its worth.

Unless there is a drastic change in politics over the next 5 years, I expect our environment and the people of this world will be prioritised below our economies. So long as that is the case its a very sad world we live in. One that might not be around much longer.

The UK has begun to rely more and more on foreign energy as their reserves of natural gas and coal diminish. The move is largely aimed at reducing emissions over the next few decades. The majority of the UK’s ageing nuclear infrastructure will have to be decommissioned by 2023, leading some experts to warn of the prospect of power shortages if new capacity is not added.

The 10 sites deemed suitable for future nuclear plants, many of which already have nuclear power facilities, are Bradwell in Essex, Braystones, Kirksanton and Sellafield in Cumbria, Hartlepool, Heysham in Lancashire, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire, Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in North Wales.

Energy and Environment Secretary Ed Miliband claims:

The threat of climate change means we need to make a transition from a system that relies heavily on high-carbon fossil fuels, to a radically different system that includes nuclear, renewable and clean coal power. The current planning system is a barrier to this shift. It serves neither the interests of energy security, the interests of the low-carbon transition, nor the interests of people living in areas where infrastructure may be built, for the planning process to take years to come to a decision.

The treaty could now come into force before the end of the year. Supporters claim it will allow the European Union to have a greater influence in world affairs and operate more efficiently, but it has had many critics that claim it puts too much national powers in the hands of Brussels.

The Lisbon Treat has taken a decade of negotiations and was intended to take effect in January 2009. But a signature from every country in the EU was needed before it could be introduced. The Republic of Ireland held a referendum where the public voted against signing the treaty, but after further pressure from EU leaders they held a second referendum where the public instead voted for the treaty. The Czech Republic was the last of the EU’s 27 member states to ratify the treaty. Mr Klaus signed it shortly after the Czech constitutional court rejected a complaint against it, ruling that it was in line with the Czech constitution.

The treaty will create two powerful new jobs roles: President of the European Council and a Foreign Policy Chief. EU leaders are expected to choose a permanent President of the EU Council and a foreign policy chief within days. Tony Blair had been tipped as the favourite to become the EU President, but Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy is now the favourite. The treaty also means that more decisions can be made by majority vote rather than unanimity, in an effort to speed up decision making.

In a move that essentially makes them the most powerful voice at the Copenhagen Climate conference, China and India have signed an agreement to work together on addressing climate change. China and India are 2 of the worlds biggest polluters. They are also 2 of the fastest developing nations on Earth and are thus critical to any climate change deal that could be reached at Copenhagen.

The move is a massive one by the economic giants. As developing nations they have shared interests in continuing to increase their emissions over the foreseeable future to further power their economic growth. Lets not forget that there are well over 2 billion of the worlds population living in these countries alone, many of which are still in poverty.

But what remains to be seen is whether this alliance will have a positive or negative impact on a climate change treaty. Both argue that capping their emissions would limit their economic growth. They, along with most developing nations, claim that developed nations such as the USA are more historically responsible for climate change and should face tougher restrictions. This alliance of the 2 largest and most influential developing nations means their opinion and demands at the Copenhagen climate conference will likely be the voice of all developing nations, perhaps completely overshadowing that of developed nations.

Make no mistake, the climate change conference is not about climate change at all. It is a battle of the worlds biggest economies on who should pay the price of pollution. Economic power is shifting to the east and America will likely do everything it can to stop it. But the Alliance of India and China now puts the odds heavily in their favour. A meaningful deal in Copenhagen simply cannot exist without agreement from China, India and America.

Will America accept their historical responsibility? Will China and India agree to only build Renewable Energy from now on? Will these people actually remember to listen to the climate scientists and not businessmen and economists? Probably not…

Next year sees a coalition of companies and organisations have signed up to the 10:10 campaign. The aim of the campaign for those participating is to reduce emissions and impact on climate change by 10% in 2010. The Tory front bench as signed up to the campaign, but so has Labour and the Lib Dems.

However, out of the 47 councils around the UK that have joined or are thinking about joining the 10:10 campaign, only 6 are controlled by the Conservatives. Surprising is it not considering their promises to tackle climate change head on if elected.

At the top, Cameron and his front benchers appear to be on top of climate change related policies, because they know it is a major issue for the future and will play a big role in the next election, but do the Tories really care about climate change? Not according to Alexis Rowell, the 10:10 coordinator for councils:

When 10:10 was launched, David Cameron and the Tory shadow cabinet were very quick to get on board. But there’s a real disconnect between the shadow cabinet and Tory-run councils. On the ground, we’re getting the sense that the Tories don’t give two hoots about climate change.

Franny Armstrong, founder of the 10:10 campaign also expressed her concern at the lack of willingness shown by most Tories:

I’m disappointed that the Tories, who have made such positive strides on environmental policy, are acting as a roadblock to the campaign locally when their leadership has been so publicly supportive of 10:10.

More evidence suggesting that the shadow cabinet’s enthusiasm for 10:10 is not repeated at local level emerged last Wednesday, when Tory members of the London assembly walked out of a 10:10 motion brought by Lib Dem leader Mike Tuffrey.

Gordon Brown took a stand on climate change this week by claiming the world has 50 Days to prevent climate change. Of course he was referring to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December which will likely decide how seriously we tackle climate change over then next 40 years. If anything Brown’s stance on taking climate change seriously makes me wonder who has convinced him. He has only ever listened to Bankers before and thus shown little care or respect for any other people, and if anything is achieved at Copenhagen it is likely to cost Brown and his beloved bankers lots of money. Penny for your thoughts Gordon?

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called for an urgent response to climate change, claiming current negotiations are moving too slowly.

Talking directly too 100 world leaders at the UN, Ban said “Your decisions will have momentous consequences. The fate of future generations, and the hopes and livelihoods of billions today rest literally with you.” He claimed failure at Copenhagen to take appropriate actions would be “morally inexcusable”.

China has shocked many at the UN, as President Hu Jintao announced to fellow world leaders that they will strive to cut emissions by a a “notable margin” by 2020. The UN has recommended at cut to developed nations of 25%-40% by 2020.

The Chinese president said his country’s cuts would be measured by unit of Gross Domestic Product. He echoed previous calls for developed nations to do more to fight climate change than developing nations, as they are more historically responsible for emissions. He also pledged to “vigorously develop” renewable and nuclear power. China’s motives may not be entirely selfless, as lets face it, the first country to crack cheap, easy and renewable energy will likely economically thrive over the coming decades.

“Developed countries should fulfill the task of emission reduction set in the Kyoto Protocol, continue to undertake substantial mid-term quantified emission reduction targets and support developing countries in countering climate change,” he said.

Brown is to call for fellow world leaders to attend the meeting when meeting in New York and Pittsburgh to discuss climate change and global economy.

So far only Environment ministers are due to attend the Climate change conference, but growing pressure on governments to reach a deal has lead Brown to believe that wold leaders should be in attendance for the final set of negotiations.

The past few weeks have seen pessimism cast over the talks, claiming agreements will not be made, and not enough will be done. The conference is widely regarded as the most important meeting of climate change in history.

The UN is planning to shock world leaders at the up coming meeting in New York this week. They are stripping them of there usual entourages, and developed nations are paired up with poorer ones to chair discussion groups, in a hope to spur conversation and help them understand the threats parts of the world are already facing.

The UN is also hoping for help from Barack Obama, who is appearing in front of the UN for the first time, To help unite leaders to a joint purpose of preventing climate change.