We need to protect the EPA

Since its inception in the 70's the EPA has been under near constant attack from hard-line conservative politicians and activists that like to claim the agency is a "job killer". In the past that just meant that the EPA was slightly inconvenienced in certain states, but with the new head of the EPA Scott Pruitt being recorded at CPAC saying it was completely justified to support the complete destruction of the EPA it is incredibly important to inform the public of the work of the environmental agency.

A pre-EPA dumping ground

Immediately after its foundation the Nixon administration sent a team of photographers across the country to document the vast amount of pollution in the US. The images of toxic lakes filled with rusting cars, smog filled cities and frothing lakes stand as a testament to the amazing work the EPA has done across the decades to clean and maintain rural and urban environments.

In the coming months every single politician and pundit that calls for the destruction or deregulation of the EPA should be reminded of what the United States looked like before the agency was introduced and how many lives have been saved due to lowered pollution levels.

World Book Day 2017

In honour of World Book Day (something that is celebrated on the 23rd of April in the rest of the world) I have decided to list five book recommendations:

1. Social Democratic America by Lane Kenworthy. An incredibly detailed look at the social democratic policies that should be introduced in the United States and how they've impacted other countries. 
2. First Men in the Moon by HG Wells. I found an old copy of this a few years ago and it quickly became one of my favourite books.
3. War of the Worlds by HG Wells (can you tell i'm a fan of HG Wells yet?) How can I not include a book that has a the royal navy fighting aliens in my backyard?
4. The Bourne Identity by Robert Ludlum. I picked up this in an old book store in Cyprus and immediately fell in love with the series. If you've watched the films I highly recommend that you pick up the books!
5. Operation Mincemeat - Ben McIntyre. I actually purchased this for my father last year but since i'm a massive history buff I've read it since then. I won't give away any spoilers but it is quite fascinating to see how all the pieces fell together. 

5 steps the government could take to tackle climate change

An idealistic and incredibly quick look at a few of the steps the government could (and should) take in order to tackle the threat of climate change.

Save the Green Investment Bank

• It is completely ludicrous that the government is privatising parts of the Green Investment Bank, especially when we have such a wealth of evidence on the devastation that will be caused if we don't act in time. Instead of retreating from our commitments to climate change the government should immediately halt this illogical privatisation and use the GIB to ramp up investment in renewable energy projects across the UK.

Restore solar subsidies

• When the government reduced solar panel subsidies thousands of people lost their jobs as businesses across the country when bankrupt. Returning solar subsidies to previous levels would not just re-create these jobs but it will reduce the overall strain on the national grid and make it easier for fossil-fuel powered plants to be replaced by renewable sources.

Insulation

• UK properties are some of the most expensive to heat in Europe. In fact a third of our 80% carbon reduction target could be filled simply by insulating our homes adequately, but recent reports state that we are far from reaching that target. By embracing new technologies and spreading the economic benefits of insulation the government would not only ensure that we meet our international obligations but key pressure would be pushed off household bills and valuable jobs will be created.

Ban fracking

• By embracing the fracking industry the government is ignoring its commitment to climate change in favour of dubious short-term gains. Pledging to kept it in the ground and banning fracking in the UK would make it easier to honour our international commitment to prevent climate change and also protect local water supplies from the pollution caused by the fracking process.

Divestment.

By divesting government pension funds from fossil fuels and investing in renewables the government would send a strong message of support to a vital and growing part of our economy, score a vital blow against the fossil fuel industry and send a message of solidarity to similar movements in the UK and the wider world.

Jeremy Corbyn and NATO

Below is an old draft I wrote over a year ago. Enjoy!

Jeremy Corbyn’s admission that he believed it was a mistake to admit Poland, and other Warsaw Pact nations into NATO is a clear failure of the Labour leader to fully understand the recent history of Europe, and one of my only complaints about the left-wing politician.

For example when Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania applied to join NATO following the collapse of the Soviet Union, they had plenty of good reasons to apply for membership of the defensive alliance. In the 19th and 20th century forces of the Russian Empire and subsequent Soviet Union had invaded and brutally occupied these territories, bringing forth a regime of cultural, economic and religious repression that deeply scarred the nations and gave them an understandable reason to join NATO.

Corbyn also said that these states should've accepted a policy of non-alignment and acted as a sort of buffer state between the Russian Federation and NATO member states. In that regard we have the perfect example of what happens to a so-called non-aligned state. In 1994 Ukraine, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom entered into a political agreement (Budapest Memorandum) solidifying Ukraine's status as a non-aligned nation in return for its ascension to the treaty of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, so how did that stand up to the test?

In 2013 the Ukrainian government was set to sign an association agreement with the European Union, however then President Yanukovych rejected the agreement, signing a similar deal with the Russian government instead. Following this news a small-group of protesters began occupying independence square in Kyiv, the subsequent heavy-handed tactics of the security forces led to the movement rapidly ballooning in size and the frequent clashes in Kyiv and other cities led to fear that the country could collapse into a state of civil war. In a last-minute effort the European Union met with then President Yanukovych and appeared to strike a deal that would resolve the current crisis, however for unknown reasons the Ukrainian leader fled the country alongside several top officials from the government. As their leader had abandoned his constitutional duties and threatened the country with an imminent power vacuum  the Ukrainian parliament decided to form a transitional government between all opposition parties. In keeping with the non-aligned status of Ukraine. Russia should have grudgingly accepted the transitional government and simply urged the administration to carry out new elections as possible, however since that date the Russian Federation has annexed Ukrainian territory and has been caught sending troops and equipment to anti-government forces currently fighting against the democratically elected government in Kyiv.

On top of these rather flagrant violations of international law the Russian government has also been pressuring the Baltic States. In 2014 Eston Kohver, an Estonian intelligence official was attacked and forcibly taken across the border and after a brief kangaroo trial thrown behind bars for fifteen years, and this is on top of the usual air incursions by Russian aircraft that in the past have posed a threat to civil aviation. NATO might not be perfect but to those in Eastern Europe it is a better alternative to the failed policy of non-alignment.

Judgement vs Experience

Since the start of the Presidential campaign surrogates and pundits alike have positively gushed over the former Secretary of States experience claiming that her tenure in this office makes her the most qualified candidate in the race. I'm not so sure and I have a few handy examples that will hopefully prove my case.

In Libya her ardent support for a no-fly zone and an air campaign in support of anti-government forces eventually won over a reluctant President Obama however as many predicted (including myself) the lack of a permanent cohesive factor between the various anti-government forces and deepening divisions across the country led to the situation devolving into a virtual civil war. As it stands large portions of the country are now under the effective control of IS and the nation poses a monumental threat to the security of Europe and North America.

After Libya Hillary Clinton also advocated for the establishment for a similar no-fly zone/bombing arrangement in Syria but this time found significant opposition for several reasons. Firstly it would have put the US in direct confrontation with the Russian government that backs the regime of President Assad, secondly it lacked comprehensive international support as several NATO allies had ruled out their involvement on such a mission and lastly the country was already a virtual quagmire. As in Syria various so-called moderate rebel groups had been caught sharing resources with radical terrorist groups and the fractal nature of the fighting made a repeat of the Libyan air campaign virtually impossible.

On Iran Hillary Clinton was quick to praise the work of Secretary Kerry in signing the nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic but her relationship with Tehran during her tenure as Secretary of State was less than fruitful. In fact Shane Bauer, an American journalist once imprisoned in Iran said whenever he heard Hillary Clinton speak on the subject of Iran his "heart would sink" because her words often angered the government in Tehran. Since giving her approval to the nuclear agreement Hillary Clinton has also been heard saying that she would be "tougher and more aggressive" than Reagan was with the Soviet Union something that does not bode well for peace in the region given the potential for deadly proxy wars between Iran and the United States.

I originally planned for this article to include several other reasons why I can't support Hillary Clinton in the democratic primary but since Clinton has embraced praise and friendship from a war criminal I felt that I had to devote an article explaining how I believe the experience of Clinton counts for nothing when compared to her awful hawkish track record.

A few thoughts on the housing crisis

I've decided to begin updating my blog again and today I return with a few (5) rambling thoughts on the current housing crisis. Enjoy!

1. Empty properties

The United Kingdom currently has just over 600k empty properties, of these just over 200k have been unoccupied for a period of six or more months. If the government started taxing properties in relation to the amount of time they've remained unoccupied it could spur developers and homeowners to sell or rent their properties to avoid a hefty tax bill. Of course that won't stop the problem all together so the government should also be prepared to seize properties that have gone unoccupied for an extended period of time (say 1+ years) and transform them into the social and affordable housing this country needs.

2. Brownfield sites

In addition to these empty properties the UK also has thousands of unused brownfield sites scattered across the country. If the government transformed these sites (using a mixture of public and private sector cash) into affordable housing for purchase/rent it would put a significant dent into the housing situation and add to the dreadfully low-number of new homes that are being constructed each year.

3. The rental market

Another problem with the housing situation is the outrageous state of the rental market but solutions to these problems have been thought of. For example Sian Berry of the Green Party put forward the idea of establishing a renters union so that the people of London could effectively organise and collectively fight for lower rents. In addition to this policy the UK should adopt more of a German approach to the market by giving tenants secure long-term rents and looking into the possibility of establishing a variable rent control across the UK. Both of these policies would greatly empower the people and lead to lower rents for everyone across the UK.

4. The low-wage economy

Yet another problem squeezing the property market is actually the current low wage economy and while the so-called living wage might help some people it is not a comprehensive solution to the problem. In order to seriously address this and some of the wider parts of the costing of living crisis across the country the government should gradually increase the minimum wage (over a 4 year period) to £10 an hour. This would help buyers obtain mortgages and mean that renters have money left over after the cost of rent + food is removed from the budget.

5. Social Housing.

Compounding all of these issues is the reality that the current government is simply not constructing enough social housing to suit the needs of the population, and has instead decided to embrace short-term thinking by implementing another disastrous help to buy scheme that will lead to the gutting of current housing stock. The solution here is quite clear, stop the horrific help to buy scheme and instead start the construction of large numbers of efficient social homes in the brownfield sites mentioned earlier. Of course the country has varying amounts of brownfield sites suitable to residential development so it might be necessary to construct some of the properties on green belt land. In order to lessen the impact the government should also empower local authorities to reject planning proposals and work together with communities to lessen the impact construction has on nearby infrastructure and the local environment.

Of course all of these proposed policies won't be implemented unless the government changes its attitude towards housing and accepts the value of long-term investment over short-term profits (an unlikely reform given the recent sell-off of public assets.) So in conclusion it is within the power of the government to solve or at least tackle the ongoing housing crisis but only if it abandons toxic short-term thinking and embraces the benefits of long-term planning and that can only be achieved by pressuring politicians to change policy or removing them via the ballot box.

A few thoughts on the EU debate

Over the past few weeks I have watched the ongoing fight over the EU referendum rather closely, and as you can probably tell from my twitter posts and older articles I get incredibly frustrated whenever I see someone spreading a myth about the European Union.

Luckily I suddenly remembered that blogs need regular updating and I have decided to share a few thoughts on tonights Daily Mirror debate;

1. Has EU migration lowered wages for UK-born workers?

During the debate Andrea Leadsom claimed that EU migration lowered the wages of UK-born workers but a recent report from the London School of Economics actually discovered that workers from the European Union have had no negative impact on the wages and job prospects of British Citizens. In addition the report also pointed out that consumer spending from EU migrants has actually generated employment for UK-citizens.

2. Is EU migration a burden on the state?

In the same argument Andrea Leadsom also claimed that our public services have been "overwhelmed" by EU migration. Of course while John McDonnell was quick to highlight the role migrants play in staffing these services and the real reason for the strain on public services (austerity) he failed to highlight a key report published by Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini of the UCL. "The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK" concludes that EU migrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011 providing valuable revenue to finance and bolster public institutions across the UK.

3. Would leaving the European Union save us from the TTIP?

In short? No. If the UK moved to adopt the "Norwegian model" after a successful Brexit to retain access to the single market it would still have to adopt the regulatory changes enforced by the passage to the TTIP. We would just lack the power to change it in a significant manner (how democratic!). And don't be tricked by any recent comments made by Boris Johnson on the issue, as the prospective Prime Minister supported the trade agreement wholeheartedly in 2014 calling it "Churchillian" even saying that the UK should negotiate an individual agreement with the US if the EU fails to pass the TTIP agreement.

Meanwhile in Europe politicians in Greece have raised serious concerns about the wording of the current TTIP agreement and senior Syriza members have said that the Greek parliament would use its veto power to kill TTIP unless serious reforms have been made, and in France Francois Hollande has said that the current deal needs to go further to protect the high regulatory standards currently enforced by the French government and has threatened to block the deal if these measures are not met.

Trade unions and politicians from across the political spectrum are working together to stop the TTIP in its tracks, so the best strategy is not to leave but to unite in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the European Union and demand a trade deal that benefits all of us and not just a select economic elite.