China pushes ahead with an emissions trading scheme, while American initiatives remain sunk in Congressional quicksand When it comes to responding to climate change, the contrast between China and the United States is stark.. It has been clear for some time that the Asian powerhouse is moving more rapidly on renewable technologies. A recent report by Pew Charitable Trusts shows China led the world last year with a $54.4bn investment in clean technology, about 40% higher than third-placed America. More surprisingly, the Communist government in Beijing is also showing a greater willingness to adopt market-based approaches that were once considered preferable only by capitalist economies. On Monday, a senior Chinese official said mandatory emissions trading systems will be rolled out in six of the country’s most advanced regions by 2013. After the pilot schemes in Guangdong, Hubei, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing, the government has promised to ramp up the use of carbon-based financial instruments to a nationwide level by 2015. It is a sign that China is both desperate and ambitious enough to try almost anything. The widely trailed move towards a cap-and-trade system will provide an extra tool for China to achieve its Copenhagen commitment to reduce carbon emissions relative to economic growth by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. Cap-and-trade initiatives in Washington started much earlier, but have sunk in Congressional quicksand. The first US experiment in emissions trading came to an end four months ago with the closure of the Chicago Climate Exchange , though California’s scheme (the world’s second largest) is reportedly in talks to expand by joining with Europe’s . Critics of emissions trading will undoubtedly say the US is better off without it. Europe currently has the world’s biggest carbon market, which has channelled billions of dollars towards projects in developing nations that are designed to reduce emissions. China has been a major beneficiary, accounting for about 60% of the world’s carbon credits. But the United Nations mechanism for evaluating credits has been plagued by allegations of fraud and misallocation of resources. In the latest scandal , Chinese officials denied this week that the country’s factories were manipulating production of hydrofluorocarbon-23 – a powerful greenhouse gas – to qualify for huge quantities of carbon credits. The European Union is unimpressed and will ban such credits when its new emissions trading system starts in 2013. Existing schemes are clearly flawed. But by opting out, the US is losing its ability to influence reform, just as China begins to establish what could become a rival trading system. Beijing has positioned itself cleverly. In the years ahead, its influence will grow in both renewable technology and climate finance. This has prompted the analyst Søren Lütken to talk of an emerging Grand Chinese Climate Scheme . It is far from certain that this will be successful. Corruption, imprecision and inexperience are major hurdles that China has yet to overcome in establishing a cap-and-trade scheme. Lobby groups could water down plans that will cost industry money. As in the US, the economy will remain dependent on fossil fuels for many decades. Yet compared to the US, China seems to have a clearer sense of direction, greater flexibility and a willingness to move. In a testimony last month to a congressional energy committee, Deborah Seligsohn, the Beijing-based representative of the World Resources Institute, spelled out the long-game that is underway: “Chinese economic strategists recognise that China was late to the industrial revolution and even late to the IT revolution, but it believes it can be a leader in a green revolution.” Frustration among US environmental groups has been building up for some time, evident in these blog comments last year from Jake Schmidt of the National Resources Defence Council: “The signals today on clean energy coming from China and the US are pointing in complete opposite directions – one country on hold and the other moving forward. Sad but true.” Expect more of the same in the coming years. The world’s red and green lights are not where they used to be. Emissions trading Carbon emissions Climate change Renewable energy Energy United States China Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Washington Post: Obama’s Speech Today Will Embrace The Catfood Commission Plan. Kabuki!
April 12, 2011 No CommentObama will, as I predicted here after last week’s call with Nancy Pelosi, throw his weight behind the Catfood Commission plan. See? He can be very decisive — when he wants to make bankers happy! President Obama plans this week to respond to a Republican blueprint for tackling the soaring national debt by promoting a bipartisan approach pioneered by an independent presidential commission rather than introducing his own detailed plan. Obama will not blaze a fresh path when he delivers a much-anticipated speech Wednesday afternoon at George Washington University. Instead, he is expected to offer support for the commission’s work and a related effort underway in the Senate to develop a strategy for curbing borrowing. Obama will frame the approach as a responsible alternative to the 2012 plan unveiled last week by House Republicans, according to people briefed by the White House. Just as I predicted. All the hoo-hah over the Ryan plan was only to soften us up for what Obama wanted all along: The plan from his handpicked members of the Catfood Commission. Just like he did with the healthcare plan, he sat down with the players and worked out his own back-door “bipartisan” deal to sidestep that messy democracy thing he finds so distasteful. Letting others take the lead on complex problems has become a hallmark of the Obama presidency. On health care, last year’s tax deal and the recent battle over 2011 spending cuts, Obama has repeatedly waited as others set the parameters of the debate, swooping in late to cut a deal. The tactic has produced significant victories but exposed Obama to criticism that he has shown a lack of leadership. Like the House GOP budget plan, the Senate effort — led by three Democrats and three Republicans known as the Gang of Six — aims to cut about $4 trillion from the debt over the next decade. But the group is looking to reduce spending in all categories, while urging a rewrite of the tax code that would raise revenue. The Republican plan would cut spending on domestic programs while protecting the military and preserving George W. Bush-era tax cuts that disproportionately benefit high earners. The work of the Gang of Six is modeled on recommendations of the fiscal commission Obama appointed last year. On Monday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the commission had “created a framework that may help us reach a deal and a compromise.” “The fiscal commission showed that you need to look at entitlements, you need to look at tax expenditures , you need to look at military spending, you need to look at all of these issues,” Carney said. “You can’t — you can’t simply slash entitlements, lower taxes and call that a fair deal.”
Continue reading …
Speculation is rife that high-trousered music guru Simon Cowell will quit as a judge on the UK X Factor – who can fill his shoes? We knew this day would eventually come. Ever since Simon Cowell – distraught at the prospect of sitting through another afternoon of hopeless singing dog acts – backed away from Britain’s Got Talent and replaced himself with David Hasselhoff, the writing has been firmly on the wall. And now it’s happened. If reports are to be believed, Simon Cowell will no longer be taking part in this year’s The X Factor. If true, this is a potentially devastating loss for The X Factor. To all intents and purposes, Simon Cowell is The X Factor. He invented it, he produced, he judged it, he co-wrote the theme tune. There’s a very good chance he rushed backstage during every single ad break and made plates of sandwiches for all the contestants. Cut The X Factor open and it bleeds Cowell. But, now that he’s decided that America is more important that little old Britain, thoughts must inevitably turn to his replacement. And that’s going to be a lot more difficult than it looks. The current The X Factor judges all have their pre-determined roles – Dannii Minogue says “pitchy” a lot, Cheryl Cole wears dresses made out of spoons and cries all the time, and Louis Walsh sits there talking away to himself – but Simon Cowell was the undisputed leader. If he said a contestant was bad, you listened. If he gave a contestant a creepy wink during their audition, you knew to keep an eye on them. If he smiled – well, if he smiled you’d instinctively cover your eyes to stop his gleaming teeth from setting your retinas on fire – but then you’d pay attention. So we should just be honest with ourselves. We will never truly be able to replace a man as overwhelmingly multifaceted as Cowell. The best we can ever expect to achieve is to simply replace elements of him. With than in mind, here are some leading contenders: The musical knowhow – When Cowell extracted himself from American Idol, his replacements were Steven Tyler from Aerosmith and Jennifer Lopez. Each knew a lot about performing hits – and, to some extent, appearing in dreadful films – but they lacked Cowell’s cold, hard business sense. If Cowell was also replaced by a pop star on The X Factor, the show would make itself vulnerable to all sorts of endless, dreary monologues about following your dreams and believing in yourself and all that nonsense, and it’d never produce another Leona Lewis again. What we really need is someone who knows how to make money. Contenders: Ashley Tabor, head of Global Radio and manager of The Wanted; Duncan Bannatyne from Dragon’s Den. The haughty demeanour – Remember what made Simon Cowell famous in the first place? It was his unstoppable cruelty during auditions. Nobody could reduce obese teenage girls from Huddersfield to tears quite as effectively as him. He’s softened a little in recent years, so his resignation would be a perfect opportunity to bring in someone as uncompromisingly rude as he used to be. Contenders: Jerry Sadowitz; Bill Sikes from the novel Oliver Twist. The terrible, terrible hair – Despite the importance of his business acumen and his attitude, the thing that most The X Factor viewers will miss about Simon Cowell is his haircut. It’s hard to overstate the importance of that weird, wiry, flattened-down broom of a haircut. It kept Cowell human. It typified the whole ethos of The X Factor. People looked at that haircut and thought “If Simon Cowell can become rich and successful despite having the single most confusing hairstyle in all of recorded history, then so can I. So can I.” Therefore, a total misunderstanding of what makes a haircut look nice should be chief among the requirements when it comes to finding a replacement. Contenders: Donald Trump; a matted piece of six-week-old roadkill. The X Factor Entertainment Television Simon Cowell ITV Television industry Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Speculation is rife that high-trousered music guru Simon Cowell will quit as a judge on the UK X Factor – who can fill his shoes? We knew this day would eventually come. Ever since Simon Cowell – distraught at the prospect of sitting through another afternoon of hopeless singing dog acts – backed away from Britain’s Got Talent and replaced himself with David Hasselhoff, the writing has been firmly on the wall. And now it’s happened. If reports are to be believed, Simon Cowell will no longer be taking part in this year’s The X Factor. If true, this is a potentially devastating loss for The X Factor. To all intents and purposes, Simon Cowell is The X Factor. He invented it, he produced, he judged it, he co-wrote the theme tune. There’s a very good chance he rushed backstage during every single ad break and made plates of sandwiches for all the contestants. Cut The X Factor open and it bleeds Cowell. But, now that he’s decided that America is more important that little old Britain, thoughts must inevitably turn to his replacement. And that’s going to be a lot more difficult than it looks. The current The X Factor judges all have their pre-determined roles – Dannii Minogue says “pitchy” a lot, Cheryl Cole wears dresses made out of spoons and cries all the time, and Louis Walsh sits there talking away to himself – but Simon Cowell was the undisputed leader. If he said a contestant was bad, you listened. If he gave a contestant a creepy wink during their audition, you knew to keep an eye on them. If he smiled – well, if he smiled you’d instinctively cover your eyes to stop his gleaming teeth from setting your retinas on fire – but then you’d pay attention. So we should just be honest with ourselves. We will never truly be able to replace a man as overwhelmingly multifaceted as Cowell. The best we can ever expect to achieve is to simply replace elements of him. With than in mind, here are some leading contenders: The musical knowhow – When Cowell extracted himself from American Idol, his replacements were Steven Tyler from Aerosmith and Jennifer Lopez. Each knew a lot about performing hits – and, to some extent, appearing in dreadful films – but they lacked Cowell’s cold, hard business sense. If Cowell was also replaced by a pop star on The X Factor, the show would make itself vulnerable to all sorts of endless, dreary monologues about following your dreams and believing in yourself and all that nonsense, and it’d never produce another Leona Lewis again. What we really need is someone who knows how to make money. Contenders: Ashley Tabor, head of Global Radio and manager of The Wanted; Duncan Bannatyne from Dragon’s Den. The haughty demeanour – Remember what made Simon Cowell famous in the first place? It was his unstoppable cruelty during auditions. Nobody could reduce obese teenage girls from Huddersfield to tears quite as effectively as him. He’s softened a little in recent years, so his resignation would be a perfect opportunity to bring in someone as uncompromisingly rude as he used to be. Contenders: Jerry Sadowitz; Bill Sikes from the novel Oliver Twist. The terrible, terrible hair – Despite the importance of his business acumen and his attitude, the thing that most The X Factor viewers will miss about Simon Cowell is his haircut. It’s hard to overstate the importance of that weird, wiry, flattened-down broom of a haircut. It kept Cowell human. It typified the whole ethos of The X Factor. People looked at that haircut and thought “If Simon Cowell can become rich and successful despite having the single most confusing hairstyle in all of recorded history, then so can I. So can I.” Therefore, a total misunderstanding of what makes a haircut look nice should be chief among the requirements when it comes to finding a replacement. Contenders: Donald Trump; a matted piece of six-week-old roadkill. The X Factor Entertainment Television Simon Cowell ITV Television industry Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
IPPR says research shows influence of BNP would not be enhanced under the alternative vote system A move to the alternative vote system would not hand undue influence to the BNP, according to research done by the IPPR looking at results in all constituencies if the last election had been run under AV. Researchers at the thinktank have run a series of tests on two different facets of the claim by those who oppose the move to AV that the BNP would be able to “pick a winner”. The IPPR looks at whether there could be a mass transfer of BNP supporters’ votes pushing one candidate over the 50% threshold, and that BNP voters’ second preferences could overturn a favourite and help someone placed second or even third to come first. The research comes as both the no and yes campaigns prepare to mark the four-week countdown to the AV referendum. The no campaign has aired concerns that a change in the voting system would boost minority parties, with their campaign director, Matthew Elliott, saying recently AV would “[give] BNP supporters more power at the ballot box”. In an AV system, voters rank candidates instead of voting only for their chosen one. If no one candidate has secured 50% of the vote immediately, the candidate who has received fewest first preference votes is eliminated and the second preferences of their voters are redistributed to other candidates. The no campaign fears the second preferences of those eliminated – likely to be those who back minority parties – could go on to have profound effects further down the reallocation process. They have published a list of 35 seats in which the BNP’s share of the vote was greater than the winner’s margin of victory. Now researchers have looked at this assertion in two ways. They show there to be 56 seats where the share of the BNP vote exceeds the gap between the first-placed candidate and the 50% threshold they need to cross and where, if all BNP supporters transferred their second preferences as a bloc, could help the lead candidate win. They then show that the 2010 British election survey – which asked 13,356 people to take part in a mock election run under their AV system – found the number of seats where the second preference of those voting BNP push a winning candidate over the 50% threshold fell to 25. However, the IPPR researchers show that in all 25 seats the second preferences of the BNP are not “decisive” and the second preferences of others just as critical. They show that in the 25, the first-placed candidate is within “spitting distance” of the finishing line and the average gap between the first and second placed candidate is 24.52%, which they say is “larger than the share of the vote of any third-placed candidate whose votes would be needed to change the result”. “In other words there is no chance that BNP second preference votes could alter the outcome in any of these seats. In all of them the winner on first preferences will be the winner once votes have been reallocated in subsequent rounds irrespective of the role played by BNP votes.” The IPPR researchers also dissect the idea that BNP voters could change the balance of power in constituencies by pushing a second or third place candidate into first place and over the 50% threshold on the back of its transferred votes. Results from the 2010 election show that there is not one constituency where the BNP vote share is larger than the margin between 50% and that received by the runner-up. Their researchers say: “Given the marginality and distance from 50% for both the first and second placed candidates it is true that BNP supporters’ second or third preferences will be counted in the 35 seats listed by the ‘No to AV’ campaign. “However, the BNP vote is still very small in each of these seats, averaging a vote share of just 4.5% – yet the average distance from 50% for the winning candidate is 11.3% and 14.2% for the runner-up. Even if we assume all BNP preferences go to a single candidate (which they wouldn’t) they would still require more than twice the number of BNP supporters to win under AV. BNP voters cannot therefore single-handedly change a result.” The IPPR details some high profile cases: Barking The IPPR says: The constituency [in] which the BNP has its highest proportion in vote share, it is a clear safe seat for Labour achieving over 50% of all votes and very unlikely requiring the need for 2nd preferences. All additional party votes summed – including the Liberal Democrats – would not be enough to elect the Conservative runner-up. Morley and Outwood IPPR says: “The BNP additional vote preferences would be counted but as the race is highly marginal – both winner and runner-up maintaining votes shares in the mid-30s – the race will be decided by the 16.76% Liberal Democrat supporters whose second preferences are more likely to go to Labour than the Conservatives.” Burnley IPPR says: “The race is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The BNP additional vote preferences will likely be counted but the 16.61% of Conservative voters will be the decisive group who strongly favour the Liberal Democrats over Labour thus, likely retaining the seat in Liberal Democrat hands”. The no campaign will maintain that BNP voters will still have undue influence in any AV election compared to those who vote for one of the three main parties. Recent research by them showed that if the 2010 general election had been run under AV, in 70% of seats those who backed the three main parties would have been unlikely to get a second vote. Launching that research, Matthew Elliott said that in some constituencies supporters of the BNP would have had their preferences counted six times before a winner was declared. Alternative vote Electoral reform AV referendum BNP Elections 2011 Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …IPPR says research shows influence of BNP would not be enhanced under the alternative vote system A move to the alternative vote system would not hand undue influence to the BNP, according to research done by the IPPR looking at results in all constituencies if the last election had been run under AV. Researchers at the thinktank have run a series of tests on two different facets of the claim by those who oppose the move to AV that the BNP would be able to “pick a winner”. The IPPR looks at whether there could be a mass transfer of BNP supporters’ votes pushing one candidate over the 50% threshold, and that BNP voters’ second preferences could overturn a favourite and help someone placed second or even third to come first. The research comes as both the no and yes campaigns prepare to mark the four-week countdown to the AV referendum. The no campaign has aired concerns that a change in the voting system would boost minority parties, with their campaign director, Matthew Elliott, saying recently AV would “[give] BNP supporters more power at the ballot box”. In an AV system, voters rank candidates instead of voting only for their chosen one. If no one candidate has secured 50% of the vote immediately, the candidate who has received fewest first preference votes is eliminated and the second preferences of their voters are redistributed to other candidates. The no campaign fears the second preferences of those eliminated – likely to be those who back minority parties – could go on to have profound effects further down the reallocation process. They have published a list of 35 seats in which the BNP’s share of the vote was greater than the winner’s margin of victory. Now researchers have looked at this assertion in two ways. They show there to be 56 seats where the share of the BNP vote exceeds the gap between the first-placed candidate and the 50% threshold they need to cross and where, if all BNP supporters transferred their second preferences as a bloc, could help the lead candidate win. They then show that the 2010 British election survey – which asked 13,356 people to take part in a mock election run under their AV system – found the number of seats where the second preference of those voting BNP push a winning candidate over the 50% threshold fell to 25. However, the IPPR researchers show that in all 25 seats the second preferences of the BNP are not “decisive” and the second preferences of others just as critical. They show that in the 25, the first-placed candidate is within “spitting distance” of the finishing line and the average gap between the first and second placed candidate is 24.52%, which they say is “larger than the share of the vote of any third-placed candidate whose votes would be needed to change the result”. “In other words there is no chance that BNP second preference votes could alter the outcome in any of these seats. In all of them the winner on first preferences will be the winner once votes have been reallocated in subsequent rounds irrespective of the role played by BNP votes.” The IPPR researchers also dissect the idea that BNP voters could change the balance of power in constituencies by pushing a second or third place candidate into first place and over the 50% threshold on the back of its transferred votes. Results from the 2010 election show that there is not one constituency where the BNP vote share is larger than the margin between 50% and that received by the runner-up. Their researchers say: “Given the marginality and distance from 50% for both the first and second placed candidates it is true that BNP supporters’ second or third preferences will be counted in the 35 seats listed by the ‘No to AV’ campaign. “However, the BNP vote is still very small in each of these seats, averaging a vote share of just 4.5% – yet the average distance from 50% for the winning candidate is 11.3% and 14.2% for the runner-up. Even if we assume all BNP preferences go to a single candidate (which they wouldn’t) they would still require more than twice the number of BNP supporters to win under AV. BNP voters cannot therefore single-handedly change a result.” The IPPR details some high profile cases: Barking The IPPR says: The constituency [in] which the BNP has its highest proportion in vote share, it is a clear safe seat for Labour achieving over 50% of all votes and very unlikely requiring the need for 2nd preferences. All additional party votes summed – including the Liberal Democrats – would not be enough to elect the Conservative runner-up. Morley and Outwood IPPR says: “The BNP additional vote preferences would be counted but as the race is highly marginal – both winner and runner-up maintaining votes shares in the mid-30s – the race will be decided by the 16.76% Liberal Democrat supporters whose second preferences are more likely to go to Labour than the Conservatives.” Burnley IPPR says: “The race is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The BNP additional vote preferences will likely be counted but the 16.61% of Conservative voters will be the decisive group who strongly favour the Liberal Democrats over Labour thus, likely retaining the seat in Liberal Democrat hands”. The no campaign will maintain that BNP voters will still have undue influence in any AV election compared to those who vote for one of the three main parties. Recent research by them showed that if the 2010 general election had been run under AV, in 70% of seats those who backed the three main parties would have been unlikely to get a second vote. Launching that research, Matthew Elliott said that in some constituencies supporters of the BNP would have had their preferences counted six times before a winner was declared. Alternative vote Electoral reform AV referendum BNP Elections 2011 Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Co-operative’s Plan Bee scheme will set up corridors of wildflowers as a food-rich habitat for honeybees, hoverflies, butterflies and moths A series of “bee roads” will be planted across the country to provide corridors of wildflowers for insects, in a scheme unveiled by the Co-operative today . The areas of land seeded with species such as lesser knapweed, field scabious, birdsfoot trefoil and red clover aim to provide a food-rich habitat for pollinators such as wild bees, honeybees, hoverflies, butterflies and moths. The scheme to restore some of the 97% of wildflower meadows lost in recent decades forms part of the group’s Plan Bee campaign to help bees, which are key pollinators of our food and which have seen numbers decline in recent years. The first bee roads will be created in Yorkshire by the Co-operative and invertebrate charity Buglife . Farmers and other landowners will sow wildflowers in two long rows which will eventually stretch north to south and east to west across Yorkshire, restoring a total of five hectares (12 acres) of land in a £60,000 pilot project. The Co-operative hopes the initiative will be emulated in other counties. Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative, said: “The UK has lost an alarming 97% of its wildflower meadows since the 1930s and this has had a major impact on pollinator numbers. “The number of honeybees in the UK has halved in the last 25 years, and three-quarters of butterfly species and two-thirds of moths have seen population declines since the 1970s. “Given that honeybees alone pollinate a third of the food we eat, a further decline in their numbers could have a devastating impact on our diets in the long run. “By setting up these ‘bee roads’, we hope to make life easier for all pollinators and reverse their alarming decline.” Loss of wildflower meadows and the nectar-rich flowers which provide food for pollinating insects are thought to be one of the major reasons for declines in bees, along with the impacts of pesticides and diseases. The Co-operative’s Plan Bee is taking action in four areas: increasing the number of hives on the group’s farmland; continuing its temporary ban on certain pesticides; funding new scientific research; and encouraging customers and members to grow bee-friendly plants, distributing seeds and training new beekeepers. Bees Wildlife Insects Conservation Co-operative Group guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Two east London men found guilty of killing innocent schoolgirl in pizza shop revenge attack that went wrong Two members of an east London gang are facing life sentences for killing an innocent 16-year-old girl in a revenge hit that went wrong. Agnes Sina-Inakoju died when she was shot in the neck in April 2010 by Leon Dunkley as she bought pizza. Dunkley, 22, a senior member of the London Fields gang, fired a submachine gun through the window of the takeaway in a “callous and cold-blooded” attack. He and fellow gang member Mohammed Smoured, 21, cycled up to the Hoxton Chicken and Pizza Shop. Dunkley fired into the shop without looking who he was aiming at and hit Sina-Inakoju, a “popular and successful” schoolgirl who hoped to go to Oxford University. The shooting, which was captured on CCTV, was the culmination of a violent and escalating feud between gangs from Hackney. Simon Denison QC, prosecuting, told the Old Bailey: “Her future was taken away from her in an instant.” Police investigating the murder uncovered an arsenal of weapons held by teenagers who had been intimidated into storing them by senior members of the London Fields gang. The shooting took place after one member was beaten up by the rival Hoxton Boys gang. Dunkley believed members of the rival gang would be at the takeaway shop when he opened fire. The court heard that after the shooting Smoured told a friend: “It’s funny, the way she dropped.” Dunkley and lookout Smoured, both of Hackney, were each convicted of murder by a 10-1 majority and will be sentenced later on Tuesday. Two youths, aged 16 and 17, were convicted of firearms offences for holding weapons and will be sentenced at a later date. Six London Fields gang members were jailed for life in 2009 for the murder of 14-year-old schoolboy Shaquille Smith, who was stabbed on a park bench. Crime Gun crime London guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Time's Ten Questions to Robert Redford drew some silly answers — like Redford denying he's a lefty. How helpful or harmful to your career has it been to be known as someone who is passionate about politics? I am passionate. I am political about my country, about what it is, how strong it is, how strong it remains. [My last film,] Lions for Lambs , got rough treatment, and I think it was because — and I don't want to sound defensive — but I think it was misperceived. I'm not a left-wing person. I'm just a person interested in the sustainability of my country. So the major political conflicts of our time are between the conservatives and the sustainers? Someone needs to tell Redford that when you favor massive government intervention to “save the planet” and back liberal Democrats for president, that makes you a “left-wing person.” Or perhaps he can see that making films seen as left-wing propaganda efforts are box-office bombs, so he's trying to . Redford's leftism is on display later in the same interview:
Continue reading …
In a campaign against homophobia in education, Stonewall has enlisted the actor Sir Ian McKellen to do a nationwide tour of schools “Do you know any gay people?” asks Sir Ian McKellen asks. Silence. Heads shake. “Well, you do now. I’m gay.” It’s my turn to speak up. “You know two now. I used to go to this school – and I’m gay,” I offer. “You know three now,” a sixth-former chips in. The other pupils don’t look too surprised, and he seems admirably comfortable in his sexuality. Silence. Then: “Erm. Well. You know four now.” Heads shoot around to see a uniformed boy, leaning close to McKellen. Mouths fall slightly open – including mine – but nobody speaks. Then McKellen says, in that mellifluous voice of his, “Well. How about that? It turns out we all know quite a few more gay people than we thought we did.” This is the third month of McKellen’s nationwide “role model” tour of secondary schools on behalf of Stonewall, the gay equality charity that he co-founded, and which I work for, and the two of us have come to Hundred of Hoo comprehensive in Kent, which I left over a decade ago. It has become a familiar scene for him. “My school visits are often rewarded by people coming out,” he says. “And I don’t just mean pupils – I’ve heard staff coming out to their heads on my visits, too.” McKellen obviously has a powerful effect on the schools he visits; how does this make him feel? “A bit overwhelmed – and privileged,” he says. Gandalf has worked his magic in 54 secondary schools over the last two years. His dream? An education system free of the homophobia that has plagued it for years – and a curriculum that fully includes lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Hundred of Hoo has recently come out of special measures and is no stranger to underachievement. McKellen and Stonewall see visits to schools like this as crucial to ensure that not one ounce of potential is lost for today’s gay pupils – especially for those who under-perform because their confidence has been battered by bullying. Homophobia was rife when I was a pupil. “Freak”, “queer” and “disgusting” were familiar words, aimed at anyone, like me, who was perceived to be gay. Consequently, nobody dared to come out. This created an un-virtuous circle; teachers could see no reason to address gay issues in lessons when there appeared to be no gay pupils. It wasn’t until I left that I discovered three of my best school friends were also gay. We had been too scared even to admit it to each other. The notorious “section 28″ law, introduced in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, was to blame for much of this. This made it illegal to “promote” homosexuality in schools. So homophobia festered unchallenged for 15 years until its repeal in 2003. But the hangover remains. Recent YouGov research for Stonewall found that nine in 10 secondary school teachers say their pupils experience homophobic bullying, but nine in 10 have never received any training on how to tackle it. Ninety five per cent of teachers hear the phrases “you’re so gay” or “that’s so gay”. Homophobia is so commonplace that “gay” has entered the school vernacular as a synonym for anything inadequate. But I hardly recognised this school upon my return. Gay issues are very much on the agenda – and pupils are refreshingly honest about their prejudices. “We Googled you yesterday Ganda … I mean Sir Ian!” says a 12-year-old girl. “We were well surprised when we found out you were gay, because you’re nothing like Alan Carr!” McKellen replies that gay people come in all shapes, sizes and personalities, just like straight people. He knows Alan and he is just like that off-screen, too. The most important thing is that he can be himself. The class listens eagerly as the actor tells them he didn’t come out publicly until 1988, at the age of 49, because section 28 was being debated in parliament. “Did you worry it might destroy your career?” a pupil asks. Yes, but that was a risk he was willing to take, McKellen says, as he explains why gay visibility was so important at that time. How has he found the pupil reactions? “Until I visited secondary schools recently, I hadn’t realised how much anti-gay bullying goes on,” he says. “By talking frankly about my own life as a gay man and listening to the concerns of staff, students, parents and governors, I hope the visits may make a difference and also give confidence to gay students about their lives in the future.” Homophobic language It’s time for the all-school assembly, the grand finale of Gandalf’s visit. “I’m not useless,” McKellen asserts in my old school hall, “but when you use that word as an insulting adjective, that’s what you’re saying about me. So please, watch your language. Because if you don’t, you mightn’t watch your actions…” He goes on to tell how Ian Baynham was recently killed in a homophobic hate attack by teenagers. “The girl who stamped on his head might have used ‘gay’ to mean anything rubbish and useless. And that probably convinced her that gay people were rubbish and useless – and don’t deserve to live.” This has a profound effect on two year 10 friends, who tell me: “We didn’t realise calling things ‘gay’ could offend someone. It was touching when he talked about never being able to tell his mum he was gay. One of our best friends is gay and he gets abused for it. We hope it will stop now.” McKellen also visits lessons to promote Stonewall’s curriculum guidance called “Oh no! Not the gay thing!”, which advises teachers how to integrate gay issues into classes. In science lessons it can be a relief for gay pupils to learn about same-sex attraction as a natural fact in other species. And same-sex relationships can make pupils think carefully about grammar in modern languages. Stonewall’s new campaign in schools also includes Lance Corporal James Wharton, who, at 24, is the new poster boy for modern gay equality: he was the first openly gay soldier to appear on the cover of Soldier, the Armed Forces’ magazine. Wharton will be touring schools with Stonewall over the next three months. There are also plans for a school intervention from a celebrated high-achieving lesbian or bisexual woman role model – who knows, she may be coming to a classroom near you soon. Secondary schools Equality Schools Gay rights Ian McKellen Young people Gary Nunn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …