Environment Background The word environment has a flexible definition but we will limit our comments to the use, reuse and disposal of the earth's materials. We are not greatly concerned about the rate of mining of any minerals worldwide. There are worries about reserves of chrome, lithium, natural gas and so on, but there appears at the moment time to discover further reserves or use or develop substitutes. Internationally there are well publicised concerns about the loss of the great rain forests, and over exploitation of the oceans, but there are perhaps greater concerns about water. Water shortage could ignite a number of potential conflicts for example between Turkey, Iraq and Syria over the Tigris and Euphrates waters; Israel and Syria over the water available from the Golan heights; and India and Pakistan over the Indus waters. In this country there will be problems providing water to East Anglia and the South East generally, and it is very important to keep up the pressure to reduce leakage and adopt bylaws to impose the more water efficient appliances. In this country the disposal of waste products to air, water or land from large sources is reasonably well controlled by the Environmental Agency. Though one can argue about the pace of improvements, and demand eternal vigilance, we have an Environmental Agency with a recognized regulatory structure, and the evidence is that the nation's rivers and coastal waters are becoming cleaner, as is most of the air we breathe (though see below). Interestingly we understand that holes are being excavated faster than landfill waste is being generated. Our main environmental anxieties, other than transport, concern the use of "fossil" fuels; population pressure; the way we prioritise environmental action; solid waste disposal; and air pollution from dispersed sources such as solvents in the home and work place. Fossil Fuels By "fossil" fuels we mean coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon rich materials. Whereas renewable energy is usually dilute, fossil fuels contain energy in highly concentrated form. Fossil fuel is consequently cheap to move around and cheap to exploit. Fossil fuel has been the largest single factor producing the material wealth of the developed countries, and continues to underpin western lifestyles. Climate scientists now fear that the CO2 released when fossil fuels are burnt, is causing global warming. This view is not held universally, and other causes have been suggested of which the most recent is the renewed interest in sunspot activity. Nevertheless the CO2 cause is scientifically plausible, and the consequences of it being proved correct are so daunting, that a precautionary policy should be adopted. The party has visited this policy area twice recently in its Energy and Climate Change policy documents. These recommended education, funded programmes for energy conservation, support to encourage research and development of renewables, and the bold proposal to use charging to reduce demand, in part through the introduction of a carbon tax. We applaud all of this, with two caveats. First that the growth of renewables will not "just happen". Even renewables have environmental as well as Nimby objections, as we have seen through opposition to CHP plants using chicken waste, and wind farms in scenic areas. If the party is serious about the use of renewables it has to move from easy generalisations to specific commitments. Nowhere is this more true than with potentially the largest renewable scheme of all - the Severn Barrage. At one time constructing the barrage was party policy, but environmental objections from wildlife organisations have grown and previous enthusiasm has drained away. Second, renewables have limited potential in the short term. Furthermore, even if 20% of electricity (8% of total energy use) is generated by renewables by, say 2020AD, this will have no impact on CO2 reduction if nuclear energy is phased out over the same period. From a scientific point of view the party's policy on nuclear energy is regrettably unbalanced. On any measurement, the human cost in lives and sickness from the mining, transport and use of fossil fuels - especially coal, have been substantially worse than nuclear. Nuclear power has had over 40 years of operating experience and after a chequered construction history, the cost of nuclear power appears now to be similar to fossil fuel even allowing for decommissioning and disposal costs. Indeed, if fossil fuels attract a carbon tax, or a levy to help meet the costs of rising sea levels, new nuclear power stations would become commercially attractive again. Again, from a scientific point of view the party's opposition to THORP, now Sellafield, is particularly embarrassing. Sellafield has created jobs, earnt foreign exchange, and reduced the quantity of uranium mined and the toxicity of the waste through the wholly laudable policy of recycling, all in a totally safe manner. We would not want the party to be other than continually vigilant over the use of nuclear energy, but it has a responsibility to be scientifically informed and to make a balanced judgement. It should acknowledge the role of the industry in tempering global warming and assist, not hinder, research to confirm that safe ways to deal with high and medium level waste can be found. Population Pressure Whatever the environmental pressures, population numbers lie behind them. Population is the great multiplier. Doubling the population not only doubles the pollution but greatly exacerbates the pressure points whether it be over fishing, toxicity of urban air, overgrazing or whatever. Indeed, one legitimate view is that the human species is slowly pushing all others off the planet, or at least into farms, conservation areas and parks. Yet consideration of population numbers appears to be another no-go area for politicians. They and the ultra green campaigning groups find it much easier to tilt at "wicked" multi-nationals, than (literally) nearer to home. Yet if any matter is close to the slogan "thinking globally, acting locally", it is the issue of population numbers. Of course we recognize that this is a sensitive area and that the ground needs preparation. We recognize too that neither laws nor tax can be employed to bring change, and that the only tool is education, through schools, the health service and public opinion. Thus we would want the party to begin by acknowledging the linkage between population and environmental pressures and then (1) advocate the inclusion of considerations of family size and the timing of motherhood as part of parenting education (2) make a commitment to counsel parents after their second child in respect of family size and available forms of family planning (3) make a further commitment to free and comprehensive family planning facilities, and (4) accept the need to target environmental awareness in groups with high levels of fertility. Studies should also be commissioned to identity the problems and benefits of different rates of decline in the UK's population. Clearly the provision of family planning advice and technology should also be given very high priority in the dispersement of foreign aid. Prioritorizing Improvements Sometimes £billions of pounds are spent on environmental schemes where it is very difficult to gauge what the actual health benefits will amount to. Nor is it clear whether the same money might have reaped substantially greater benefits if spent elsewhere. For example, could the money spent "saving surfers from sewage" have led to fewer enteric disorders had it been invested in improved food handling? Alternatively could it have saved lives, if spent on road safety measures? We ask the question because we do not know, and we suspect no one does. We do suggest there is an urgent need for someone, probably the Department of Health, to have a unit looking at the cost benefit of different environmental improvement schemes in an attempt to invest the available money in a sensible order of priority. Disposal Of Solid Waste The party approved the policy document "Making the Environment our Business" at Southport. Party policy is to limit both landfill and incineration (though no figure is set). It is not clear how these ends will be achieved, because LAs are given no power to limit the production of waste. Looking first at municipal waste, the contents can be split into about 6 categories: glass and metal, especially aluminium, (which should be recycled due to the high energy cost of manufacture and kept away from incineration because it wastes energy); inert materials such as bricks and crockery rubble (which should be recycled to roads or foundations, or lost in landfill); organic matter (which can be converted to methane in landfill or composted to fertiliser); paper and textiles, (which might as well be burnt, as the energy gain from recycling is very small); plastics; and all kinds of toxic sundries such as batteries and oil. Because, as we have said above, there are few shortages of raw materials, the key issue for recycling is whether or not it saves energy, bearing in mind the cost of cleaning and collection. The major issue is the disposal of plastics. The different chemical compositions make recycling difficult; plastics biodegrade dreadfully slowly in landfill; they represent the greatest proportion of litter; and they may lead to the emissions of dioxins generated by incineration. Plastics happen to be something of a 20th century miracle, for example through their use in man made fibres such as nylon; replacing heavier and more damaging metal products; or particularly in elevating hygiene standards enormously through shrink wrapping and other forms of packaging. The focus of our concern should not be so much the issue of landfill and incineration, but the problem of plastics. The strategy should be to reduce plastic use and increase the weight recycled as far as possible. The party should require clear labelling of all plastics to distinguish the main "families", so that they can be sorted and recycled, and either propose a disposal tax on the use of plastics so that wasteful use is curtailed, or require retailers to develop refund schemes (eg 3p on a bottle of Fairy Liquid, 2p on a crisp packet) so that some items at least can be returned and recycled. This may or may not reduce the total volume of material going to incineration, but it will reduce the risk of damaging emissions. There is a further issue too, and that is the mix of materials. A package with cardboard back and clear plastic front, or an item part metal, part wood, is much more complicated to dispose of than say a glass jar or drinks can. Recycling cars, and items like refrigerators and old PCs, is yet more complicated. In other words it is imperative that the ability to recycle is designed in. This means working with industry, probably through the EU, to find practical ways to maximise recycling. The D of ETR set up an industry council for electrical and electronic recycling in Oct 1992, and this council has already done some useful work. This kind of initiative needs to be expanded. Air Quality We note above that large point emissions to air are reasonably well controlled, but nowadays there is a cocktail of chemicals emitted randomly in the home and work place. Any gas appliance which does not burn efficiently will generate carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Most detergents have fragrant perfumes. Tippex and many other items release solvents and these have been identified in cases of "sick building syndrome" where air conditioning carries them round. There is concern about glues where toxic particles can be released through D-I-Y activity. We need research and the development of monitoring devices. The Building Research Establishment is one organisation which could be funded to do this. Contents