Waste management can be a toxic political issue in Europe. Last month, police and protesters clashed near Naples in the Campania region of Italy over the creation of new waste dumps to end the garbage crisis that had been plaguing the city for months.

Campania residents fear that the unregulated and toxic waste disposal methods could cause contamination. Their fears stem from the fact that years of waste mismanagement, corruption and organized crime have left streets stinking with decomposing garbage. Protests have been kindled by plans to open a dump in the Vesuvio National Park, too. This became a national issue during the last general election in Italy and compelled the president to promise to clear up the mess.

The wealthier the European Union (EU) becomes, the more waste it generates. The same can be expected from China. People in the EU throw away about 3 billion tons of waste every year, 90 million tons of which is hazardous. This boils down to about 6 tons of waste generated by every man, woman and child. The treatment and disposal of all this waste – without harming the environment – has become a major problem for the EU authorities. And it’s not surprising that the EU is taking initiatives to reduce the waste generated by its member states.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the waste generated by EU member states between 1990 and 1995 increased by 10 percent. Some two-thirds of what we throw away is either burnt in incinerators or dumped in to landfill sites. But both these methods are environmentally unfriendly. Landfills not only take up valuable land space, but also cause air, water and soil pollution. They emit carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, and allow toxic elements to seep into the soil and groundwater. These, of course, are harmful to the environment and ultimately to human beings, and plants and animals.

The OECD estimates that by 2020, we would generate 45 percent more waste than we did in 1995. We must reverse this trend to avoid being submerged in rubbish.

The picture, fortunately, is not all that gloomy. The EU’s Sixth Environment Action Programme identifies waste prevention and management as one of its four top priorities. The EU’s primary objective is to decouple waste generation from economic activity so that its growth no longer is tied to creation of more waste. In fact, there are signs that this is beginning to happen. In Germany and the Netherlands, for example, the generation of municipal waste fell in the 1990s.

The EU’s aims are ambitious, perhaps because it is using new waste prevention initiatives, making better use of its resources, and encouraging individuals and enterprises to shift to more sustainable consumption patterns. The EU’s landfill directive is, largely, responsible for this change. Its targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste and the fines it imposes on people and companies generating excess garbage are a positive way to reduce waste and ease the pressure on recycling facilities.

In the United Kingdom, the regulatory body responsible for the implementation of the EU’s landfill directive is the Environment Agency. It has adopted several ways to implement the directive such as permitting waste management facilities and administering the trading of these permits between municipalities in the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

According to the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the amount of household waste being recycled has increased more than three times in the past decade. But despite that, households still "throw away" more than 60 per cent of the waste they generate. On average every household disposed of more than 1 ton of rubbish last year, 625 kg of which ended up in landfills or was incinerated. This varies from region to region and city to city, though.

So, the best way to solve the problem is to generate as little waste as possible and recycle it through ecological viable methods. In fact, London authorities are considering granting incentives to people for recycling waste. But will London residents recycle more of the waste they generate if they got incentives? Or is imposing fines for generating excess waste a more effective way of reducing the generation of garbage? It is still to be seen if fines or the threat to impose them will help reduce the amount of waste at the household level.

Italy, the EU said the Italian authorities had failed to establish a strong network of waste disposal facilities close to the areas where waste is generated. By its failure to do so, Italy had also failed to prevent the threat excess waste causes to human health and the environment. In other words, Italy has failed to fulfill its obligations under the EU’s waste disposal directive. Hence, the Naples example should teach Chinese cities’ authorities how not to manage their waste generation and disposal plan.

Click here to view full article

London politicians are calling for an investigation into how Fire Brigades Union pickets were hit by vehicles driven by strike-breaking staff during the London firefighters’ strike last week.

Darren Johnson, a Green Party London Assembly member and member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, is to ask authority chair Brian Coleman to order a formal probe by London Fire Brigade into three “unacceptable and shocking” incidents during Monday’s strike.

FBU executive council member Ian Leahair was knocked down by a fire engine outside Southwark Fire Station and taken to hospital with severe bruising. Another firefighter at Southwark had his hand hit by a fire engine refusing to stop, and another picket at Croydon was hospitalised with spleen and spine injuries after a head-on collision with a car the FBU says was driven by a non-union manager.

Mr Leahair told Tribune: “The driver refused to stop, pushing myself and a police officer to the ground. I sharply moved my legs towards my chest otherwise the wheels would have gone over me.” He expressed incredulity that the driver could have felt intimidated by the pickets, as there were 40 police officers present, and suggested that the driver had received instructions not to stop for pickets.

Police have arrested two men at Croydon and Southwark in connection with the attacks. They have both been bailed and are due to report to a police station next month.

Mr Johnson told Tribune: “Whatever people’s views of the strike, to have injuries like that is clearly unacceptable and shocking.” The incidents “raise serious questions” about the fire brigade’s use of private contractor AssetCo during the strike, he added.

Labour London Assembly and fire authority member Murad Qureshi said he would support calls for an investigation: “I think there are some questions to be asked, given that managers were involved.”

A London Fire Brigade spokesperson confirmed that two firefighters had been injured last week but declined to comment on whether they would conduct their own investigation. The brigade had not instructed AssetCo not to stop for demonstrators, they added.

Click here to view full article

On a recent trip to Bangladesh to fulfill a family commitment,  l was plagued by people asking me about what happened in the Mayoral contest in Tower Hamlets.   And while much has already been said about the elected Mayoral contest last month, l feel compelled to say my piece and move on as well.

For many of us outside of Tower Hamlets, the whole sorry episode appeared like a car crash happening in slow motion.  However, this was in fact a case of Bangladeshi village politics within the London political arena and for some observers, possibly even global Bangladeshi politics within London.

Both the leading candidates in the Mayoral contest represent the same ward as councillors, Spitalfields & Bangla Town.  Indeed it is rumoured that Helal Abbas first introduced the victor, Luthur Rahman to local politics.  Furthermore, both drive around in big Mercedes cars and intriguingly also come from the same group of villages in Sylhet, (a sub-district called Balaganj).  So for many like myself, it is difficult to distinguish between them in terms of UK local government politics.

The problem arose when Lutfur declared he would stand as an independent after been disqualified by the NEC of the Labour Party.  In the minds of the Bengali voters (religious and secular) he was immediately perceived as the “victim” and Abbas as our third choice candidate.  Given that the Bengali voters were going to be the only ones bothering to vote, this put the Labour candidate in a critically weak position.

Ken Livingstone may have been right to say that the NEC had its moment of madness,  (illustrated well by Christine Shawcroft’s minutes of the September NEC meeting)  but equally,  Ken exposed himself to similar accusations, by going over to meet Lutfur Rahman so openly after only recently being confirmed as Labour’s Mayoral candidate for London in 2012. The reality is that this election was lost well before Ken turned up at Whitechapel.  You only had to follow what was being said and discussed in the Bengali press before his trip to understand that.

It was right and proper that Phil Woolas was suspended from the Party following the court case announcement last Friday and not any earlier.  Yet we could have done with some of this logic with Lutfur Rahman’s disqualification.  The fundamental tenet of British Justice which requires some proof  before acting, should have been applied to the accusations made against Lutfur before his disqualification.  Ironically, the Islamic Form of Europe (IFE) who are at the centre of the alleged Islamist links with Lutfur Rahman, have stated that it actually had more contact with Helal Abbas then with Lutfur Rahman and it was Mr Abbas who first introduced him to their set-up. Other past leaders of Tower Hamlets council also had regular contact with the IFE.

What worried many is that, one of the accusers was rewarded with the Mayoral nomination when the allegations have yet to be substantiated.   This was again picked up be the Bengali media but was not addressed by our candidate, the campaign or the NEC.

The NEC needs to investigate this almighty cock-up in Tower Hamlets and learn the lessons quickly from start to finish,  including the no campaign against the elected mayor of Tower Hamlets,  the selection of our mayoral candidate for Tower Hamlets and the campaign itself.   However, the investigation should proceed cautiously as we have a by-election in Spitalfields & Bangla Town almost certainly now before the Christmas break.  This will no doubt keep the Bangladeshi electorate preoccupied with local politics.

On a final note, this mayoral election should have been about how an East End borough was going to respond to major cuts in public services announced the previous day but in fact, it spiraled into a personal splat between two individuals in the East End, who know each other well in the world of Bangladeshi village politics.  This is how many in the wider Bangladeshi community see this and the London Labour party should also view this within its rightful context.  Even more importantly, this contest was an unedifying start to the Ed Miliband era for the London Party organization.  This is certainly something we could have done without in the build up to the GLA elections in May 2012.

WHO is Sebastian Coe kidding when he claims that the marathon can’t finish at the Olympic Stadium in 2012? 

The question both he and LOCOG (London Organising Committee  of the Olympic Games) need to ask themselves is: when have the Olympics had a marathon that doesn’t end at the Olympic Stadium? 

With the exception of Athens 2004 (for very good historical reasons as it followed the original course of the marathon at the Games in Greece 1896), every Olympic city has managed to have the marathon end at their Olympic stadium – including London in 1908 and 1948.

I am surprised that  Seb Coe, commonly perceived as the IOC (International Olympic Committee) lackey, hasn’t told us that it’s an IOC bid requirement that we must fulfil at all costs.  

But a history lesson is in order to him and others. In 1908, the marathon began in Windsor Castle and ended in the White City Stadium in west London when London stepped   in to help the Olympic movement out at very short notice after a volcanic eruption meant Rome could no longer host it. 

The distance from    the start of the marathon to the finish at the stadium was established at these games as being 26 miles, 385 yards to accommodate the start from Windsor, when previously the distance varied wildly. 

The most famous incident of the games came at the end of the marathon when the first to enter the stadium, Dorando Pietri of Italy, collapsed several times and ran the wrong way.  

Then in 1948 immediately after the war, the marathon began and finished at Wembley Stadium. The event came to be known as the “Austerity Games” due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. 

No new venues were built for the Games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. 

The marathon again saw a dramatic finish with the first man to enter the stadium, Etienne Gailly of Belgium, exhausted and nearly unable to run. While he was struggling, he was overtaken by Delfo Cabrera of Argentina and also Thomas Richards of Great Britain. Cabrera won the gold and Gailly recovered enough to earn the bronze.  

Seb gives us questionable 21st-century logistical reasons for not being able to finish at the stadium when we were perfectly able to achieve this at the beginning of the 20th century in much more trying circumstances. 

He says that it would require the closure of Tower Bridge and key artery roads in central and east London; however, this is no different from when the annual London marathon starts in south-east London with participants who can literally take all day to complete the course. So why should it prove so difficult in 2012, in far less difficult times?  

Unfortunately, I suspect the marketing boys have got to LOCOG and outmanoeuvred the transport experts. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Transport for London to devise a route that complies with all the requirements. Style over substance has been championed by the powers that be as the more scenic route past Buckingham Palace along Pall Mall has been chosen to showcase Royal London at the end of the Games instead of the new stadium in the traditional East End. 

If we could do it in 1908 and 1948, we can certainly do it in 2012.

Lord Coe and LOCOG need to rethink their priorities and keep to Olympic tradition and not fall under the spell of the marketeers. 

Unfortunately, this decision means that another tradition the London Games will be missing out on is a dramatic finish to the marathon on its last lap in the stadium. 

• Murad Qureshi is Labour London Assembly Member for Westminster 

Clich here to view article

Published: 21 October 2010
by JOSH LOEB

PUNCTURES and wet weather are standard hazards for cyclists, but now a politician has claimed that “Boris Bike” users are facing a new obstacle: City Hall.

Murad Qureshi, Labour London Assembly member, this week criticised Westminster City Council for putting the brakes on 33 applications for bike hire docking stations – more than any other local authority.

The avid cyclist, who lives in Queen’s Park, accused the city council of jeopardising the success of the scheme, saying there was a “chronic shortage” of these stations in the borough. The council said his comments were unfair and claimed it received more applications than other local authorities.

Mr Qureshi said: “Westminster City Council has been the obvious obstacle to the rolling out and the future success of the cycle hire scheme, with just over 40 per cent of the refused bike stations and one quarter of the withdrawn applications coming from within the borough.”

In August he highlighted the case of two docking stations under the Marylebone flyover which were marked on Transport for London maps but had not been built. 

Chris Skitch, who lives near Charing Cross and runs online forum borisbikes.org, said many applications were being refused planning permission in Westminster because of complaints from residents.

He said: “What makes me angry is where local residents have objected. That seems to be happening most often in affluent parts of London where people would rather have Chelsea tractors driving around than these unsightly hoodlums on bikes. There’s a case to be made that property values improve with the docking stations so I think residents who object might be making a mistake.”

Councillor Robert Davis, deputy leader and cabinet member for the built environment, said: “We strongly refute any suggestion that we are not supportive of the mayor’s bike hire scheme. In Westminster we are keen to see lots of people using bikes in the city, and we have been supportive of the scheme as we see it as an important way of tackling climate change and a way of introducing more environmentally friendly transport into the city.

“We have given permission for 170 bike hire stands in Westminster, that is more than any other borough, and we have worked hard to make sure that the docking stations have been placed in appropriate sites. 

“The only reason that we may have refused more applications than elsewhere is because a greater number of applications were made to us.”

View article here

Published: 21 October 2010
by JOSH LOEB

PUNCTURES and wet weather are standard hazards for cyclists, but now a politician has claimed that “Boris Bike” users are facing a new obstacle: City Hall.

Murad Qureshi, Labour London Assembly member, this week criticised Westminster City Council for putting the brakes on 33 applications for bike hire docking stations – more than any other local authority.

The avid cyclist, who lives in Queen’s Park, accused the city council of jeopardising the success of the scheme, saying there was a “chronic shortage” of these stations in the borough. The council said his comments were unfair and claimed it received more applications than other local authorities.

Mr Qureshi said: “Westminster City Council has been the obvious obstacle to the rolling out and the future success of the cycle hire scheme, with just over 40 per cent of the refused bike stations and one quarter of the withdrawn applications coming from within the borough.”

In August he highlighted the case of two docking stations under the Marylebone flyover which were marked on Transport for London maps but had not been built. 

Chris Skitch, who lives near Charing Cross and runs online forum borisbikes.org, said many applications were being refused planning permission in Westminster because of complaints from residents.

He said: “What makes me angry is where local residents have objected. That seems to be happening most often in affluent parts of London where people would rather have Chelsea tractors driving around than these unsightly hoodlums on bikes. There’s a case to be made that property values improve with the docking stations so I think residents who object might be making a mistake.”

Councillor Robert Davis, deputy leader and cabinet member for the built environment, said: “We strongly refute any suggestion that we are not supportive of the mayor’s bike hire scheme. In Westminster we are keen to see lots of people using bikes in the city, and we have been supportive of the scheme as we see it as an important way of tackling climate change and a way of introducing more environmentally friendly transport into the city.

“We have given permission for 170 bike hire stands in Westminster, that is more than any other borough, and we have worked hard to make sure that the docking stations have been placed in appropriate sites. 

“The only reason that we may have refused more applications than elsewhere is because a greater number of applications were made to us.”

View article here

Last Friday on my way home on the tube from City Hall, l read the Evening Standard. The article which caught my eye the most was the one about the Liberal Democrat’s failure to find anyone suitable to stand for them in the mayoral contest.    

If I’m completely honest, my thoughts on this are, does it really matter whether the Lib Dems have a candidate at this stage or not because their candidate has no chance of winning the mayoral contest anyway? It is such a binary political choice between the Tory and Labour candidate that the only meaningful contribution any Lib Dem mayoral contender could make, is to declare where they think their voter’s second preferences should go. It does, however give an opportunity for someone to bank some publicity for themselves, as they are afforded the same stage as the other two heavyweight candidates. Therefore it comes of little surprise to read about Mr Opik’s desire to stand and the party’s understandable reluctance to press ahead with the selection process without any real choice.  Nonethless, there is no getting away with the fact that this is an important choice for the Lib Dems. Their last mayoral candidate in 2008 was Brian Paddock and with his rather wooden performances, l’d suggest probably cost them two London Assembly seats. Next time round, it’ll be even more difficult for them, with two years of public expenditure cuts under their belt and as the junior partner in a coalition government, the electorate will probably want to punish them, particularly with all their broken promises on issues like tuition fees. Candidate or no candidate at this stage, the reality is that the Lib Dems would do well to hold onto their 3 seats on the London Assembly in 2012. 

Click image to enlarge