Why You Are Wrong To Put Your Faith In Councils...

Alison Benjamin (editor of the Guardian's Society section and co-author of A World Without Bees and Keeping Bees and Making Honey) thinks parks are the bee’s knees:

More adults want councils to protect spending on green spaces, including parks and playgrounds, than spending on libraries, youth clubs and helping people find work. Nine out of 10 adults in the Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by environmental charity Groundwork said green spaces are an important factor in making somewhere a good place to live or work.

Yes, well, that’s the problem with surveys – they tend to provide the answer the people running them seek.

It's all in the way you phrase the questions, as S Weasel shows us.

I'm pretty sure if the libraries people ran a survey, or the association of youth club leaders, it’d miraculously find a quite different answer!

… a range of environmental bodies will argue in Manchester on Wednesday that failure to maintain investment in green space is a false economy.

Well, yes. Of course they will.

Green spaces near our homes give us valuable places to get to know our neighbours, and build the social glue that reduces crime, says a report on the benefits of green space.

"High-quality, well-maintained parks and green spaces make a significant contribution to the establishment and retention of stable and law-abiding communities," it says.

It also states that if everyone had easy access to green spaces, obesity costs to the NHS could be reduced by up to £2bn, and that the calming effect of green spaces has been shown to reduce hospital admissions for mental illness in deprived urban areas in the US.

Far-fetched claims?

Well, almost certainly, but that doesn't usually stop people, does it?

Not if we remember the origins of public parks. The first official acknowledgment of the need for my local park in east London came in the 1839 annual report of the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages.

Recording a mortality rate far higher than the rest of London, brought about by overcrowding, insanitary conditions and polluted air, he wrote: "A park in the East End of London would probably diminish the annual deaths by several thousands … and add several years to the lives of the entire population."

And in 1839 it was indeed a good idea, but then, in 1839 we were a vastly different society to the one we have now, weren't we?

I rather doubt that in 1839 they had gangs of disaffected youth, muggers, drugs dealing, litter, dangerous dogs, disrespect for property… all things which plague modern day parks.

Today in the UK we don't need parks to prevent diseases spreading, but they still provide a range of vital benefits. So how can we pay for them? The majority of those polled want councils to pay for their upkeep.

But 40% said money from sponsorship by local companies should foot the bill. In Manchester, MPs worked closely with major industrialists to bring parks to cities.

Is that the way forward 150 years on?

Well, as a commenter points out, it better not be left solely to the public sector!

Agir

I have been waiting 10 years for this article: I worked as a ranger in Ealing (2nd greenest borough in London) and was shocked at the sheer incompetence of the management, not only in wasting money but also in a complete lack of environmental or social knowledge. A few examples : A fountain in Walpole park used mains water pressure (i.e. was simply a large bore tap) running all day, all year because there was no budget for installing a motor or simply even putting a timer on it. Grass cutting contracts were so badly managed and written that in a particularly sunny wet year the grass that had been cut was longer than that that had been left (grass grows until it seeds and then grows much much less - apparently not one contracts manager was aware of this fact of nature) that was a waste in excess of £1 million each year, plus all the unnecessary noise and air pollution from the grass cutters. We couldn't take a deposit from contractors wanting to put a temporary access road across a park because the accounts were zeroed each year and thus we couldn't hold the funds. The contractors were paid to do a variety of things but the actual completion rate was below 40% i.e paid to fertilise raised beds but never did (nor even had the equipment to do so - despite being paid for the job. All tree work was done on a job basis regardless of the amount of work involved, felling 6 trees cost the same as removing one limb from each tree. Several members of staff did zero work but couldn't be sacked as the process would take so much work effectively you would need to hire someone to watch the person every day for a year to see that they had done nothing. The vehicle maintenance (not fuel) contract cost £7,000 per vehicle each year (the vehicles weren't even worth that). Play parks were overhauled without any research into user needs (and there is no point building a BMX track if no one on the estate has access to a BMX. By now you have got the picture. Lessons learned: I could have saved at least half the budget just by not cutting the majority of the grass and then by removing rose bushes, enforcing the contracts that were already signed, sacking the bad staff and a few things could have delivered better service for 20% of the cost. Also the guy whose kid was injured in the foot by a roundabout in Acton would probably like to know that yes we knew about the potential danger (it had happened before and was highlighted every year by external auditors, and by me every month) and was not a non-preventable accident, and yes the management lied utterly and destroyed evidence to hide this..

Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not.

Fish Are Friends Endangered Species, Not Food!

George Monbiot goes on a rant about….fish:

The Guardian wouldn't publish recipes for golden eagle or nightjar or wildcat. So why is it considered acceptable to publish recipes for equally endangered creatures of the sea?

Because golden eagles, nightjars and wildcats are all protected species. Monkfish, John Dory and halibut aren’t. Next question?

I ask this because recently I had a very short discussion with the eminent chef Angela Hartnett, after reading her recipe for a monkfish (or John Dory or halibut) stew. I tweeted her as follows:

To @angelahartnett: Love your work, but please stop publishing recipes for endangered species. Thank you. — GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) October 17, 2012

No wonder it was a ‘short discussion’! I suspect if it had been her mentor, Gordon Ramsay, it’d have been even shorter!

Someone else replied, saying: "would that not be censorship? Surely Guardian readers have the nous to apply a bit of common sense?"

Oh, hardly!

Angela picked up this response, and wrote: "agree Guardian readers are savvy buy from a sustainable source like @fishforthought".

But George wasn’t happy with that. What a shocker, eh?

…here's why I believe it is inadequate:

Take a deep breath…

If she wants people to buy from Fish for Thought (a Cornish supplier that tries, when it can, to sell what it calls "sustainable" fish), why doesn't she say so when she publishes her recipes?

Ummm, because it’s advertising, George? And most publications have to be careful about that?

I contacted Fish for Thought and asked them whether the monkfish they sell has been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. (This is the only guarantee of anything approaching "sustainable"). They told me: "No – our monkfish is not MSC-certified. I don't know whether there is any MSC monkfish anywhere to be honest."

Clearly, since there’s no shortage of monkfish, George is the only person in the UK worried about this!

As Fish for Thought freely admits, buying from this company is no guarantee of sustainability. I noticed, for example, that they're promoting scallops on their website. They told me that the scallops are caught by dredging. This is one of the most damaging of all kinds of fishing…

But they taste so good pan-fried with bacon and black pudding!

The Good Fish Guide says the following about monkfish: "Scientists say they have such poor data about the number of fish that are caught that it is impossible to produce accurate advice on the status of the stocks, and they are calling for much more stringent monitoring of these fisheries … The species is targeted by a number of modern fishing gears, making this species vulnerable throughout its range."

Right, so if not monkfish…what?

Buying halibut is likely to be even worse than buying monkfish. The Good Fish Guide reports that wild Atlantic halibut are "heavily overfished and listed as an endangered species". The guide gives it a rating of 5: the highest level of environmental damage.

*sighs* What’s left? Pilchards?

I would love to believe that Guardian readers are savvy about the fish they buy, but I'm constantly amazed by the number of right-on, socially conscious people who don't think twice about buying rare species. Or perhaps it's not so amazing. If the papers keep telling them that cooking these animals is normal and acceptable, by specifying their use in recipes, it's easy for people to imagine that there can't be a problem.

Or perhaps they just think life’s too short to worry about the long-term sustainability of fish?

I don't mean to single her out, as almost all the chefs who write for the papers include vulnerable or endangered species in their recipes. The notable exception at the Guardian is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. I find it astonishing that his excellent and highly visible campaigns seem to have had so little impact on other people who work for this newspaper and its sister publication, the Observer.

Oh, chefs! Why can’t you all be just like Hugh?

What's the point of telling us how to cook a species we shouldn't eat?

Angela and Nigel Slater wisely decided to ignore his further interrogation, but Yotam Ottolenghi responded:

"My main point is that my top priority is to deliver delicious recipes. That is, to share with my readers all the wonderful food the world has got to offer. I am not a campaigner. When it comes to choosing my ingredients, I try to keep myself informed and not use particularly contentious ingredients. I believe that different readers will make their own ethical choices – whether to buy any imported, CO2-heavy ingredients, only free-range animals, organic produce, sustainable fish varieties, fair trade, shop in small shops, etc etc. "I have been pretty consistent over the years saying that reducing your animal protein intake is, in general, a good thing to do both for our world and for ourselves. I say this all the time and I have been acting on this by offering recipes that are heavy on vegetables, pulses and grains. Many people who bought my books and read my column tell me that these have made a radical change on their diet and that they now consume much less meat or fish. I believe that this is as valuable as any campaign. Otherwise, I prefer that the informed reader makes his or her own choice and decides which of many current and important causes to follow."

Well, Yotam, if you thought allowing people to make their own choices was a good thing, then guess again! It’s George’s way, or the highway!

All this is commendable. But it does not sit easily with promoting the consumption of rare animal species, and species whose extraction is ecologically devastating. Most of the time I'm proud to be associated with the Guardian and the Observer. But our participation in the destruction of the ecology of the seas makes me ashamed. To titillate the palates of prosperous people (those who can afford to buy monkfish, halibut or tiger prawns are likely to be prosperous), chefs writing for these papers are helping to power one of the fastest and most extensive degradations of the natural world in human history.

I buy monkfish, halibut and tiger prawns. Quite often. Am I ‘prosperous’? Gosh!

I'd like to suggest that the Guardian and Observer implement – as soon as possible – a policy of not specifying any fish which has an environmental damage rating higher than 2 on the Good Fish Guide. And that whenever a recipe for fish or other seafood is published, it should include a note urging people to buy only from a stock certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. If your fishmonger doesn't have certified stock, cook something else. Does that amount to "censorship"? Or is it just a sensible and minimal response to one of the most urgent threats to the natural world?

No, no. It sounds eminently sensible. You go right ahead. I'm sure we’ll manage to find Angela’s and Nigel’s recipes in other publications, on TV shows, on the Internet.

After all, the day I look to the ‘Guardian’ or ‘Observer’ for ethical advice on what to put in my mouth (or anything, really) is the day I probably stop eating forever…

Update: From Robert the Biker, a song for George:

*To the tune of 'When the boat comes in'*

Who shall have the fishy 
On the little dishy 
Not you says the Moonbat 
'Cos that fucker's rare