Cities are now the center stage in the battle against climate change, contributing as they do about 75 percent of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions across the globe. This at a time when more than 50 percent of humanity lives in cities and towns, a figure that can only increase given the scale of urbanization in the developing world.

In the lead-up to the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December this provides us with plenty of food for thought on city-level strategies to deal with global warming. The cities have good reason to address the problem in order to improve the local environment for their residents.

What is happening sooner than expected is that the mega-cities of the developing world are already rivaling or even exceeding the CO2 footprint of major cities in the developed world, both in terms of total output and per capita.

The UN-backed Bangkok Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009 found that the Thai capital emitted 43 million tons of CO2 in 2005, lower than the figure for New York (58 million tons) but almost the same as London (44 million tons). In per capita terms, Bangkok residents were responsible for producing 7.1 tons of CO2 per year in 2007, the same level of emissions as New Yorkers and significantly higher than Londoners (5.9 tons per capita).

Transportation, electricity generation, solid waste and waste water account for about 90 per cent of the emissions in Bangkok.

The transport sector alone is responsible for 38 per cent of the yearly CO2 emission, reflecting a massive expansion in the use of passenger vehicles. The number of motor vehicles registered in Bangkok rose from 600,000 in 1980 to 4,163,000 in 1999, a sevenfold increase, and by the end of 2007 the figure had reached 5,614,294.

Let us not forget how vulnerable developing cities are to climate change. Bangkok gets its water supply from the Chao Phraya and Mae Klong rivers, both of which are fed by Tibetan glaciers, as are almost all the rivers of mainland Asia. So a rise in temperature, resulting in the further melting of the glaciers, would increase the likelihood of floods in Thailand.

The double-whammy for Bangkok is that it is also vulnerable to a rise in the sea level. Almost 55 percent of the city would be vulnerable to floods if the sea level rose by 50 cm, and 72 percent would be threatened by a rise of 100 cm.

So it is clear that Bangkok is primary example of a developing world city that needs to adapt to and mitigate climate change, not only as part of an international strategy to combat global warming, but also because of the immediate threat to its own residents.

The measures to be implemented by Asia’s growing metropolises to cut their CO2 emissions and improve the quality of life for residents include investing in public transport in order to achieve a modal shift away from private vehicles, appropriate road pricing to deter vehicles from entering city centers, as has been adopted in Singapore and London, and better public information on travel options as well as education on the health costs of poor air quality because of increased use of private vehicles. Similar measures need to be implemented in the energy and waste management sectors.

In Copenhagen, alongside the formal procedures of the conference of the parties, which are predominately nation states, there will undoubtedly be a lot of focus on what cities can contribute to humanity’s battle against climate change because the environmental impact of the world’s major cities is much greater than that of many nation states.

Indeed, capital cities in the developed and developing worlds both often dominate their national economies, with Bangkok acting as the economic hub of Thailand’s economy in a way that is not dissimilar to the role of London in the UK economy.

This does suggest that major cities should also be made into parties to the conference, legally bound to any future agreement and commitments. There could also be instances where cities and their regions may agree to many of the changes that their nation states’ representatives reject. This is what happened in the US when the Bush administration refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which many American cities and regions, such as San Francisco and the state of California, signed.

While opt-outs should be discouraged, this more flexible approach could be useful in any developing nation that refuses to sign an international agreement on the grounds that the developed world has failed to accept its responsibilities.

Published in China Daily, 22 October 2209

Yesterday we had the Olympic officials in front of the London Assembly to update us on progress towards the 2012 Olympic Games. Brian Coleman and myself took the opportunity to put it to representatives of the Olympic Delivery Authority that salaries and bonuses for senior management at the ODA were excessive, particularly at a time of major cutbacks in the public sector. I accused them of being the “bankers of the Olympics“, spending taxpayers’ money on generous bonuses for themselves while others are having to live with the consequences of the recession.

An examination of the ODA’s accounts for 2008-9 (pdf here pp.76-7) reveals that its chief executive earned a basic salary of £384,000 and its chairman £250,000 (for a three-day week), while salaries for the ODA’s seven directors were between £192,000 and £282,000. (This compares with the prime minster’s annual salary of £195,000.) In addition the chief executive received a bonus of £209,566, while the directors got between £38,000 and £48,000 each. Total bonuses came to £2.1 million, up from £1.7 million the previous year, out of a total wage bill of £19 million for 202 staff.

Now l have been supportive of holding the 2012 Olympics in London right from the beginning, but clearly some people are doing very well for themselves out of it. In tough times for all of us, they need to show more restraint.

Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, Murad Qureshi, has called on the Tories to come clean about their aviation plans after a report for Boris Johnson said his idea to build a new airport in the Thames could go ahead after the general election.
 
Nationally, the Conservatives say they will halt airport expansion in south east England. But Boris Johnson today threw their plans into chaos as his proposal to build a new, four runway airport in the Thames Estuary moved a step closer. A feasibility study about to be published will reportedly say "a further airport is required by or before 2030" and assumes that "agreement to the next the stage is given from 1st June 2010" – potentially days after the next general election.
 
Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, said: "The Tories need to come clean about their airport plans. They say they don’t want any more runways but their most senior elected member would build four of them and a whole new airport in the Thames.

"It would be devastating for the environment, an expensive, logistical nightmare and has the potential for dangerous bird strikes. David Cameron needs to tell us whether this is fantasy island or Tory policy."
 
In a blow to the business case for a new airport, a seperate City Hall report published in April found that, "New airport capacity placed far from Central London may not be appealing to airport users and will not see high use of public transport, particularly if new capacity is also sited far from existing urban centres outside London." 
 
Ends
 
Notes
 
More information about Doug Oakervee’s feasibility study can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8312924.stm
 
The GLA’s report into airport choice in Greater London can be read here: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/wp_35.pdf
 
Aviation minister, Lord Adonis, today told the BBC’s Politics Show that the Thames Estuary airport idea was "pie in the sky" and that the government doesn’t regard it "as any way credible".
 
Shadow transport minister, Theresa Villiers, told the House of Commons on 28 January 2009 the Thames Estuary airport was "not an option that we are looking at at the moment". But Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin, told the BBC’s Politics Show that Ms Villiers "was not ruling it out". Jenkin said that if the Tories "could prove that this was fundable and financeable" and could "win hearts in minds in north Kent and south Essex constituencies" then "this idea will be properly in play".

Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, Murad Qureshi, has welcomed Boris Johnson’s u-turn on charging polluting vehicles to enter London, but has expressed anger at the unnecessary two-year delay the Mayor’s dithering has caused.
 
Boris Johnson this morning performed a u-turn on his contentious decision to suspend the roll-out of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ), the next stage of which would have charged the most polluting vans and mini-buses to drive into London from October 2010. The Mayor had announced in February that the third phase of the LEZ would be suspended but today admitted it was a "useful" means of tackling air pollution and will go ahead after all in 2012 – two years later than originally planned.

Labour’s environment spokesman, Murad Qureshi, said: "This is another embarrassing u-turn for Boris, even if it is a welcome one. Because of the Mayor’s failure to take a firm decision, Londoners now have an unnecessary two-year wait to breathe more easily. We know thousands of people die prematurely every year in London because of our poor air, so this is a two-year wait we can ill afford. Boris’s dithering means van drivers have been messed around and Londoners’ health could suffer – it’s hard to see who gains from this type of weak leadership."

Now I’m not one for watching EastEnders (it’s enough to put you off living as, quite honestly, if that’s a reflection of real life who would want to live?). But does this fantasy of an East End in which the ethnic diversity bears more of a resemblance to Havering than to Tower Hamlets really need Boris Johnson having a cameo role to provide authenticity?

It’s certainly a coup for Boris, being portrayed as a pretty straight guy on such a popular show. But since when has it been in the BBC’s remit to influence the public’s perception in this way? As the Labour group on the London Assembly has pointed out, the guidelines on political impartiality that apply to the BBC’s current affairs programmes should also apply to a mass entertainment programme like EastEnders.

The BBC claims the Mayor’s office is “politically neutral”, which ignores the fact that the London mayoralty has become one of the most hotly contested elections in the UK. Perhaps the BBC’s drama department needs to check with the politics department for confirmation!

The fact that EastEnders previously refused publicity for a genuinely non-political GLA recycling initiative under Ken Livingstone, on the grounds that the material featured the Mayor of London logo and was therefore too political, underlines the absurdity of the Beeb’s argument. The Beeb should always be even-handed and consistent when dealing with political figures, not turning down some and promoting others.

The Beeb claims Boris’s presence is based on the recent narrative of the pub owner Peggy Mitchell contesting some local election. If that’s the case, then why not give the local election commissioner a walk-on part?

Of course, that wouldn’t generate the same level of attention as a high profile figure like Boris, which was certainly one motive for the decision to feature him on the show. Nor do the Beeb want to stand in the way of actor power, as it appears the offer of a role to Boris was the result of a personal approach from Barbara Windsor. More fundamentally, perhaps, the BBC are probably anticipating a Cameron victory in the next general election, fear a possible Tory attack on the licence fee, and want to curry favour with their future political masters.

Whatever the explanation, when you add this latest scandal to the BBC’s evident willingness to give free publicity to fascists, you can only say that it knocks one more nail in the coffin of the right-wing myth about the BBC’s supposed “liberal left bias”.

Ahead of Boris Johnson’s appearance on EastEnders this evening, Murad Qureshi, a Labour member of the London Assembly, said today:

"The BBC should always be even-handed and consistent when dealing with political figures, not turning down some and promoting others. It’s a coup for Boris, being portrayed as pretty straight guy on such a popular show, but I would question whether it’s in the BBC’s remit to influence the public’s perception in this way."

The Standards Committee took the right decision in finding Richard Barnbrook guilty of bringing both the London Assembly and Barking & Dagenham Council into disrepute.

Barnbrook’s claim that three murders had taken place over a 3-week period in Barking & Dagenham was shown to be completely false.

He engaged in the worst sort of scaremongering, playing on public perceptions of rising crime when in fact crime figures are coming down. In my opinion, Barnbrook has shown that he is unfit for public office.

In Barking and Dagenham, Barnbrook and his party won support on the basis of their “Africans for Essex” propaganda, falsely claiming that the council was offering £50,000 to Africans to buy homes in the borough.

This is how the BNP operates – by spreading lies and exploiting irrational fears.

Murad Qureshi, London Assembly Member, calls upon the Mayor, Boris Johnson, to use his powers and act decisively to sort out a notorious accident hotspot.

Murad said: "Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Brent Councils are all failing their residents by not providing any pedestrian crossings at the junction of Harrow Road, Kilburn Lane, and Ladbroke Grove. Twenty-four people have been injured, four seriously, trying to cross the road at this junction. It is about time that Mayor Boris Johnson knocks heads together to come up with a solution to this pressing problem."

In written answers to Murad’s questions the Mayor ducks the issue and lays the blame on the three Local Authorities.

Rather than taking a lead to sort out this problem Boris takes a back seat and offers technical advice if asked.

Notes

• Murad Qureshi AM is the Labour Group environment spokesperson on the London Assembly and Chair of the Assembly Environment Committee.
• Murad recently put written questions to the Mayor about this junction at Mayor’s Question Time:
  http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=27695
  http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=27714

BAA are due to introduce controversial mixed mode flight operations at Heathrow in the next few months, Murad Qureshi AM has learned.

Murad Qureshi AM said: "When Geoff Hoon announced the cancellation of the 1952 Cranford Agreement in January this year, he specifically said this would not lead to mixed mode operations at Heathrow, but now BAA has quietly decided to operate take offs and landings on both runways simultaneously, which to my mind is mixed mode. BAA thinks that by redefining the term they can get round the ruling that prohibits it, but they’re merely playing with semantics."

Mixed mode is the standard operating procedure for all single-runway airports in the UK, whereby planes take off and land on one runway at the same time. Heathrow currently uses a segregated mode on its two existing runways, whereby at any one time one runway is used for take-offs and the other for landings, either to the East or the West, depending on the wind direction. On westerly operations, which occur some 70% of the time, they swap over at 3pm to give people under the flight paths some respite from the noise for part of the day.

However, for over 50 years, planes have been prevented from taking off from the Northern runway in an Easterly direction by the Cranford Agreement, established because of the proximity of the village of Cranford to the runway. This has in effect prevented mixed mode working at Heathrow – until now. When the Secretary of State decided to cancel the Cranford agreement in January this year to reduce the noise experienced by people in Windsor, Hatton and North Feltham, BAA seized on the opportunity to re-interpret the rules and introduce mixed mode working by the back door.

Ealing resident Margaret Majumdar, who has been campaigning for many years against the unacceptable noise from Heathrow said: “BAA may try to dress it up as something different, saying that the airport will only operate in this way for a small part of the day, probably in the late evening, but their plans constitute introducing what people have understood for decades to be mixed mode working and I find this totally unacceptable. There are no plans to consult local communities about this, beyond its statutory consultation with the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee, it’s just another example of BAA doing whatever it wants with complete disregard for the people who have to put up with the awful and relentless noise levels around Heathrow."

Margaret continued: "Residents of Cranford, Heston, north and central Hanwell and north and central Ealing, who have not suffered noise from take-offs up to now, will suddenly find that they are suffering the appalling noise that people under the flight paths in current use have to put up with. There are already 700,000 local residents who suffer from Heathrow operation: now there will be even more. Research has shown that aircraft noise can affect the health of people who regularly suffer it, and that there is a detriment to schoolchildren’s learning in schools under the flightpaths. BAA needs to use the reduction in the number of flights caused by the recession to make the reduction permanent and start to reduce the imposition the airport places on local communities."

BAA reported plans to change operational working at Heathrow at a meeting of the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee earlier this year, which could result in mixed mode landing and take-offs starting between February and May 2010.

Notes to Editors

• Murad Qureshi AM is the Labour Group environment spokesperson on the London Assembly and Chair of the Assembly Environment Committee.
• He is the London Assembly’s representative on the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee.
• Margaret Majumdar is Secretary of the Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group (EANAG).
• BAA’s presentation can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/lcygnm
• The minutes from HACC’s meeting of 29th July 2009 can be found at: http://www.lhr-acc.org/documents/29Min29July.pdf

Last weekend l was in Edinburgh at the Co-op Party conference for the launch of its manifesto “A Co-operative Agenda for a Fourth Term” (pdf here). Now I have often thought that developing ideas for the future often means going back to old ideals and principles, particularly in light of the failure of the global capital markets. A manifesto to change the culture of our financial institutions is a must, and we can start by returning former building societies to the mutual sector. The remutualisation of the likes of Northern Rock will embed much needed stability in our economy.

The principle of mutuality is also applicable in other arenas like housing and energy. In housing it can mean mutual home ownership through housing co-ops and community land trusts holding and managing assets collectively, while residents are individually both tenants and shareholders. In the energy markets we could have co-operative energy schemes, whereby we enable local communities to buy their own energy collectively, saving them money and helping boost the take-up of green energy. More so after feed-in tariffs come into play next April.

Co-operation and mutuality maybe seen by some as retro, but their time has definitely come again.