I can see how an argument can be made for controlling a species that seems to be destrying an ecosystem.  On the other hand I can see how it can also be argued that having a species alter an ecosystem is only natural; it is what happens and everything will settle into a new balance.   That, in turn, can be countered by observing that humans as a dominant species will do what they can to keep the environment as they want, though as we have a conscience and the ability to understand the consequence of our actions does make us a bit different to other species.

What I can’t really understand is any justification on the grounds that non-native species are not ‘natural’.  There is hardly anything natural about the British landscape if by natural you mean not shaped by humans.   If you want to keep Britain’s environment as it should be you would have to replace most of it with forests and forget about having potatoes or tomatoes around the place.

One thing I am sure about is that the story as presented in the Guardian makes a very poor case.  For a start, the sub-heading is downright misleading. It says:

Population of wild birds, also known as quaker parakeets, deprive economy of £1.7bn a year, says Defra

However, further down the page a Defra spokesman says:

Non-native, invasive species deprive the British economy of £1.7bn every year

This sounds like all non-native species cost £1.7bn a year, while the headline says that just this one species cost £1.7bn a year.  It looks like the headline is misleading becasue the story also says that there are only 100 to 150 monk/quaker parakeets in the wild, which would work out at £1.3million a year per bird.  Unless these birds are packaging up sub-prime debts, selling them on as AAA securities I don’t think that is likely.

Most surprising of all, the RSPB says it supports killing these birds and to justify that says “These species aren’t causing any major conservation problems in the UK at the moment, but they might in future.”  Wow.  With friends like that…

I wait with bated breath to see who jumps in first to try and stop this: Peter Singer or Brian May

I do still have time for Friends of the Earth (and even a few hours sleep a night) so I thought I would bring this Autumn’s campaign to everyone’s attention.  The Friends of the Earth website http://community.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/renewables/index.html puts the campaign in a nutshell;

Last year the UK Government made a firm commitment to boost renewable energy by supporting a new EU Directive which says that 15% of all UK energy should come from renewable sources by 2020. But it is now trying to undermine the target by increasing the level of flexibility within the directive.  Proposals so far have included

• Countries could buy renewable energy credits from outside the EU.
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) from fossil fuel plants could count.
• Extra concessions be granted for large-scale projects.

The Government is also set to publish a UK strategy for meeting this EU-set target in March 2009. We have an opportunity to make sure that the Government supports a strong and sustainable renewable energy strategy at home and in Europe. This means making sure the UK commits to its current target in the EU Directive, and then publishes a robust UK strategy.

Hopefully your local groups will be organising a Day of Action on 25th October to get the public to send postcards to their MPs asking them to support this robust strategy.  Look out for them – the contact details for local groups can also be found on the FoE comunity website – but if you are otherwise occupied on the 25th then you can always sign up online ( http://community.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/renewables/form.html )

Just to show that Skuds isn’t the only one who can use song titles for his posts….

We have been a touch busy recently and, among other things, we spent a very rainy Saturday last week helping the Huddersfield Friends of the Earth Group in their protest against EU Biofuels targets.

(I’m holding the % and a T, Rob has T and I – luckily the driving rain and wind stopped long enough for the photocall!)

We were asking passers-by to sign post cards asking their MEPs to vote against a legally binding target for Biofuel use.  The problems this will cause are many: deforestation, habitat loss, lack of food availability in the developing world, but the one that got most cards signed was, inevitably, closer to home. More grain was harvested last year than ever before but, because so much was used for Biofuels, the cost of bread and animal feed has actually increased. Tell people that Biofuels are partly to blame for the cost of their weekly shop and they were queueing in the rain to sign up!

Even if your local Friends of the Earth group hasn’t organised any postcard signings or other events you can still let your MEP know how you feel via the FoE website http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/biodiversity/press_for_change/biofuels/index.html the link is at the bottom of the page.  I sent off my email and even got a couple of replies. One was a fairly measured reply from one of the Conservative MEPs and the other was, well, from UKIP.  I nearly coughed up my own skull at this reply since it was basically a rant about how corrupt and undemocratic the European parliament was. I’m not sure if I’m brave enough, or stupid enough, to reply to this guy but what I really want to know is what are UKIP doing getting themselves elected as MEPs?  I assume he draws whatever allowances he is entitled to so this must, in UKIP’s mind make him corrupt, and since he must have been elected I would like to know how much he paid for the votes he got (since that must be his proof of the ‘undemocratic’ dig). Mind you these guys believe that wind turbines will alter prevailing wind currents in our climate so I don’t think I will take their advice on renewable energy….