Is COP26 meeting the one hope to stop run away climate and biodiversity crises?

The COP 26 meeting, beginning at the end of the month, has been billed as the last chance to save the planet. The Conference of the Parties (COP) 26 is made up of the signatories of the UN Framework on Climate Change, which was agreed in 1994. The most recent meeting was in Paris in 2015, which saw countries pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions (CO2). The aim being to keep warming to 1.5 degrees or below compared to pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, much of the talk of Paris has just proved to be no more than hot air. The promises of US$100 billion to be annually transferred to developimg countries in order that they can adjust and develop sustainably has failed to materialse. Meanwhile, the world is on track to heat up to 3 degrees over pre-industrial levels rather than the 1.5 degrees or less needed to avert disaster. The period since Paris has been marked by ever more extremes of weather - floods, droughts, extreme heat and fires. Ironically, one of the few things to put a check on climate change was the disaster known as Covid. It brought the world to a halt and with it much damaging CO2 emitting activity. Now, there needs to be a new normal created that sees the climate and biodiversity crises being dealt with in tandem. Part of the COP 26 process will be to examine the Nationally Determined Contributions for each country. These are the plans established post Paris to attain the targets set at that conference. There is a good deal of tightening needed if countries are to get anywhere near the targets required. The countries of the world with the biggest emission levels must come under particular scrutiny. China is the biggest emitter of CO2, accounting for some 26%.Next comes the US on 13%, followed by India (6%) and Russia (4%). So much is expected at COP26. It is possible to make the changes required but time is running out. The countries of the world need to come together for the common good of all, not using these negotiations to get trade, territorial or other advantages from the process. Only a real pulling together and commitment to strive for the betterment of the whole world can save us all.

West Ham end Manchester City's four year reign in Carabao Cup

West Ham 0-0 Manchester City (5-3 on penalties) West Ham' s progress in three competitions continueda at the London Stadium, as Carabao Cup cup holders Manchester City became the latest victims of David Moyes all conquering Hammers. It was the first time in five seasons that City had lost a game in the Carabao Cup. West Ham were indebted on the night to reserve goalkeeper Alphonse Areola, who at one point pulled off three successive saves, each one better than the one before. Both clubs put out weakened teams, though City still looked formidable, with Kevin De Bruyne, Raheem Stirling, Riyad Mahrez and Kyle Walker all in the starting line up. Before the end, Phil Foden, Jack Grealish and Gabriel Jesus had all joined the fray but to no avail, as the resilient Hammers held on. West Ham captain Mark Noble led from the front, seeing an early shot parried by City keeper Zack Steffen. But it was City who dominated possession for large parts of the game, without ever getting that decisive finish. West Ham gave the ball away too much in the first half as they struggled to clear their lines. One move saw Cole Palmer put Ilkay Gundogan in but he fired just wide. West Ham found more space in the second half, with Aaron Cresswell setting up Arthur Masuaku, whose cross shot was parried by Steffen but fell to Andriy Yarmolenko, who saw his shot blocked. De Bruyne then saw his shot pushed round the post by Areola before the keeper pulled off a brilliant point blank save from Raheem Sterling. The usually reliable Tomas Soucek twice found space in the area but fired wide. West Ham brought on Premiership regulars Said Benrahma, Pablo Fornals and Jarrod Bowen, offering more movement and attacking options. However, it was when the game moved to penalties that the sustitutions really paid off, with Bowen and Benrahma calmly striking home - the latter finishing the job with the last kick. Five out of five, Foden missing the crucual kick for City. West Ham assistant manager Stuart Peirce praised the resilience of the players. 'We are in a building process, there is real honesty in the dressing room', said Peirce, who highlighred the improvement of young right back Ben Johnson. 'He is developing , getting better and better.'

Michail Antonio continues winning run against Spurs

West Ham 1-0 Spurs West Ham talisman Michail Antonio secured all three points for his side in this tight fought derby against Spurs at the London Stadium. Antonio popped up in the 72nd minute to force the ball home from a well taken Aaron Cresswell corner. It was Antonio’s sixth goal in the Premier League and his seventh in what is proving a vintage season for the big striker. The home side had the better of the first half possession, with Pablo Fornals testing Spurs keeper Hugo Lloris early with a well struck volley from a Jarrod Bowen cross. Tomas Soucek then skied one from the centre of the penalty area when set up nicely by Antonio. Soucek then saw a thumping header from a Fornals cross go just wide of the post. It was Spurs, though, who had the best chance of the half, when England captain Harry Kane met a cross from Sergio Reguilon, but saw his point blank header at the back post tipped over by Lukasz Fabianski. The game continued to flow from end to end in the second half, with Spurs probably having the better of the possession. It was West Ham though who took the decisive lead when Antonio stepped up to convert the corner. .

Let's see Royals lead by example

It is excellent to see Prince William fronting the Earthshot scheme and speaking out on the environment. But it really is time the Royals walked the walk as well as talking the talk. They own huge swathes of land and property across the world. Crown lands dominate this country. So how about a bit more sustainable development of these holdings. Rewilding, sustainable energy production, responsible farming, as well as a much wider right to roam for the general public. Some of this is happening already but to paraphrase Prince William's grandmother, the Queen, not quickly enough. Published - Metro, 21/10/2021

No need to oppose all change

Wanstead is a place that has slowly evolved over the centuries. Go back 100 years, then the area was pretty rural - fields abounded - Wanstead really was a village. Then, the railway and motor car came, bringing their own infrastructure. Housing increased as well, with the various estates being built. I have lived in Wanstead for over 50 years during which time there has been slow change. The fundamentals like the high street, George and Christchurch Greens have remained pretty much unaltered - improved in some ways, with more focus on biodiversity and attempts to make the area more people focused. The biggest changes have been the building of the M11 Link road under George Green - something I and many others opposed. Previously there had been the building of the A406 and M11. Both have brought noise and particulate pollution to the area, as well as some economic benefits. It would be good to live to see those roads occupied by quieter electric vehicles. The thing is that change happens, if it didn't we would still be in caves. Some of the change is good, other less so. As we get older there is a tendency to oppose almost any change - it is a sort of stop the world I want to get off syndrome. A tendency to look back with nostalgia but forward in a negative way. It is an understandable insecurity. The oppositionism though is often quite irrational. Why for example do we get so concerned about ancient monuments that maybe in decline. No problem raising money to restore them - the only value really being historic, looking back. Yet, things like wind turbines and solar panels - technology needed to save the planet, upset some people aesthetically. But what is the difference between wind turbines and windmills - similar technology but widely different perceptions amongst the public. The wind turbine is the infrastructural development of the modern age - it says who we are in the way say a castle did for those living in the 15th and 16th centuries. Change is inevitable on the path of life. Not all of it amounts to progress and some should definitely be opposed. There is a case in much that we do today to consider a step back. But the changes need to be considered in the round for the betterment of life on earth, not opposed simply because some don' t want to see change.

Brilliant stage finale for Hilary Mantel's Thomas Cromwell trilogy with Mirror & the Light at the Gielgud theatre

The Mirror and the Light Gielgud Theatre This production of the Mirror and the Light represents a brilliant final part of the trilogy of plays tracking the rise and fall of Thomas Cromwell. This one has been a while in arriving, coming seven years, after the dramatisation of the first two books Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies. This time the star of those plays, Ben Miles plus director Jeremy Herrin have collaborated with writer, Hilary Mantel, to bring this production to the stage. Miles and Mantel have done a fine job, producing a screen play that reduces down the 883 page book to a tight stage narrative. The Mirror and the Light brings the Cromwell period to a close, whilst seeking to tie up some of the loose ends of the first two books. Notably, Miles and Mantell continue to include a lot of humour in the production, a clear difference to the TV depictions. Nathaniel Parkinson ,as King Henry, is excellent as the ebuncular monarch, at times, leading the court in merriment but who can change in an instant to a troubled, violent despot, dispatching people at will. The rising in the north, the Pilgrammage of Grace, is put down brutallly, after inital indications of concessions. At the time, Cromwell is noted by the King to be the most unpopular person in the realm -interesting, given the play was in production, when Dominic Cummings was fulfilling a similar modern day role. Ben Miles, as Cromwell, holds the whole thing together, with his powerful performance. A man troubled by the past, with the ghost of his father Walter (Liam Smith) making thuggish appearances. The ghost of Cardinal Wolsey (Tony Turner) makes for lighter contributions - " Dominus vobiscum - just passing through." Class is never far from the surface, with the nobles constantly resentful that Cromwell, the son of a blacksmith and Wolsey, the son of a butcher, should have risen to the highest office. This excellent production was illuminated by numerous outstanding performances, such as Melissa Allen as Mary Tudor and Nick Woodeson, as the diminuitive but constantly aggressive Duke of Norfolk. The booming Duke of Suffolk (Nicholas Boulton) is a constannt presence. There is quite a lot of doubling up on characters, with Matthew Pidgeon particularly outstanding as both the debonair Spanish ambassador Eustache Chapuys and the bitter and threatening Bishop in Winchester, Stephen Gardiner. One that doesn't work so well is having the same actress, Olivia Marcus, playing Queens Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard. The depiction if the two characters is similar, yet history suggests they were very different - almost opposites. Though, maybe a subtler point is being made! Overall, this is a splendid final part of the trilogy of plays. A great adaptation, brought to life by some extraordinary performances. High marks for Miles, Mantel, Herrin and all the cast. The question for Mantel is what now after Cromwell? * booking till 23 January

Failure to act on climate and biodiversity crisis justifies direct action

The activities of direct action environmentalists Extinction Rebellion have caused something of a stir recently. Efforts to block roads and obstruct the flow of traffic has raised temperatures. Recently, another group Insulate Britain took action to stop traffic flows on some major motorways. Their aim is to get more insulation of buildings to halt carbon emissions – not that revolutionary many may think. It is always amusing to hear or read mainstream media journalists tackling the environmental direct action activists. They earnestly question why they are disrupting daily activity in such a way. The question rather misses, or makes the point, namely that it is the normal way of living that has landed us in this crisis in the first place. Going back to “normal” is no answer. The protesters point is that conventional routes of seeking to get government at all levels to act to counter climate and biodiversity catastrophe does not work. They have not brought the action required, often resulting only in vacuous rhetoric and promises that never seem to be fulfilled. Note, the commitments made at the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 to transfer US$100 billion a year to poorer countries in order that they could counter climate change – the funds have not materialised. Governments pass Climate Emergency legislation but the dictionary definition of emergency is missing. Things begin to happen but only slowly. Swedish activist Greta Thurnberg has repeatedly pointed out how the politicians are not taking this crisis seriously. The direct action is born of total frustration. Increasing numbers of people across the world recognise the emergency that climate and biodiversity destruction represents. What is more everyone has seen how world governments can act in an emergency, as evidenced by Covid. What is needed is for the climate and biodiversity crises to be given the same emergency status as Covid. Indeed, there is a strong argument that Covid was born partly out of the biodiversity crisis. The great irony of the journalists who question the actions of the direct action activists is that quite often the same news bulletin will include the another story on the latest devastation caused by climate destruction. The two items do not seem to be joined together. What government needs to do is recognise the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crisis and respond to the demands of the protesters. It is no response to simply seek to criminalise protest. That is not an answer, the protest will simply move elsewhere, taking up a different form. What the protesters want is action now, not at some distant point, when it is too late with world gone beyond the tipping point of climate and biodiversity destruction. The world will be watching when leaders gather for the COP26 meeting in November - more meaningless rhetoric simply won't do. Action is needed now.