Once beautiful, Barcelona have tumbled and fallen out of our affections

It was of wide opinion that the worst thing that could happen to the Champions League was Barcelona being paired with Real Madrid in the knock-out stages.

The purists had it down as the perfect final.

As the draw for the semis was made, comments I heard were 'four Clasicos in 18 days (they met in the Copa del Rey final and Primera Liga) would dilute this fantastic fixture' and 'these are the two top teams in Europe and should grace Wembley'. 

Wembley here we come: The Barcelona players celebrate their 3-1 aggregate win over Real Madrid

I was excited about the two-legged tie, more so than any other game between two sides outside the UK for a long, long time. 

But even after Barcelona deservedly progressed to Wembley, I couldn't help but feel I was mis-sold football's equivalent of the Harlem Globetrotters. And it all stems from that disgraceful first leg at the Bernabeu.

I can understand games where the flow is interrupted by little fouls, made with the intention of breaking up the tempo, but what was on display that evening was blatant cheating. And sadly it prevailed. 

There were many incidents that night that could have applied to the above but none were more crucial than the sending off of Madrid's Pepe. 

Looks nasty: Dani Alves rolls around the floor after a challenge from Pepe in last week's first leg in Madrid

Yes he appears to follow through on Dani Alves with his challenge but he doesn't touch him enough to warrant the reaction from the Brazilian full-back.

Cue a load of Barcelona players hounding the referee, then the red card. 

Alves completes the move by being carried off on a stretcher to return within seconds, up and running around as before.

Who needs to work on set-pieces to score when you can work on ones to get the opposition sent off?

Before they were a man down Madrid were struggling to cope anyway, with 10 men they were lambs to the slaughter and Lionel Messi's moments of magic earned the visitors the unassailable 2-0 lead. 

But, even with a two-goal advantage, Barcelona couldn't help themselves at the Nou Camp. 

Better take the weight off that: Alves leaves the field on a stretcher - but he was sprinting back on shortly after

Javier Mascherano's constant tumbles to the ground were an embarrassment and his playacting ruled out a perfectly good Madrid goal. 

Rules state that the referee can give a foul if there is any sort of infringement and there is no doubt that Cristiano Ronaldo's accidental fall did see him slightly touch the ex-Liverpool midfielder. 

But with Gonzalo Higuain in front of him ready to fire past Victor Valdes, Mascherano collapsed in a heap and won a free-kick. 

With the score 0-0 on the night, it was another pivotal moment in the tie. 

Honestly, if it was as easy to go to ground after contact as slight as that, offices and high streets up and down the country would be full of people rolling around the floor – an amusing sight come to think of it - and physios would instantly cash in. 

There were just too many separate incidents to go through them all, Real Madrid were no angels, but they all follow the same pattern in that they are trying to con the ref. 

Fall guy: Javier Mascherano (right) was quick to take a tumble as Spain's big two clashed in the Nou Camp

I know it's not new, Graeme Souness said last night that it's always been part of the game in Spain to try and influence the referee. 

You only have to look at the tough-tackling, no-nonsense midfielder Mascherano was at Liverpool to the disgrace he has become today to see that. 

But there are other reasons for my discontent. Messi once again lived up to his star billing to give a mesmerising performance in attack that underlined his status as the best in the world. 

All he needed was a goal on Tuesday to cap off a perfect showing in both legs – and it just proved that the Catalan giants do not even need to cheat to win. 

Pedro's goal at the Nou Camp is about one of the finest team efforts I have ever seen, so it just makes it all the more frustrating that Barcelona still played to win at all costs. 

Roughed up: Messi was on the receiving end of a few tasty challenges from the Madrid players

But as the greatest player in the world displayed his fine talent, without the need for diving it must be added, his huge positive contribution over both legs has been overshadowed by half-time punch-ups, simulation, alleged racism, red cards and accusations of UEFA favouritism. 

It's easy to say ignore that and just focus on Messi, but that brings me on to my next point which is the future of the game. 

We were all young once and all looked up to various figures for inspiration. 

Millions of budding young footballers around the world watched this tie and you can bet your mortgage that many will go out for their local team on Sunday morning and start to hone their simulation skills. More so, the crowding of referees too. 

Hey, if world-class centre-backs such as Carlos Puyol can lead a player revolt on the referee and get away with it, why will kids think any different? 

Ref justice: Barca skipper Carles Puyol (No 5) gets involved with the man in the middle during the first leg

Any of you who have played in a local Sunday league or even watched as a doting parent will understand how easy it is for things to get out of control at a junior match. 

Once the players lose respect for the referee, the parents quickly follow and an innocent Sunday morning kick-about turns into a free-for-all. 

It's a poison that must be eradicated from the game. But until UEFA/FIFA start to severely punish cheating and a lack of respect shown towards officials, then games of this magnitude will produce the same thing in the future and grass-roots football will continue to suffer. 

Just as well el clasico wasn't the final, Wembley can do without more negative publicity as football HQ desperately needs a classic game to try and create some history. 

Manchester United should overcome Schalke, and as a neutral I will be desperate for them to beat Barcelona in the final. 

I know Sir Alex Ferguson's men are no saints but even if it's just for this year at least, football needs Manchester United to win the Champions League by displaying a brand of football fit enough to be copied by young kids across the globe.

Read more...

The wrong amount of sleep 'can age your brain by up to SEVEN YEARS'

The amount of sleep we get can impact our mental health in later life, a study has warned.

Sleeping too little or for too long disrupts how we think and can age the brain by up to seven years, the findings show.

Getting less or more than the six to eight hours recommended sleep increases the speed of cognitive decline and affects abilities such as reasoning and vocabulary.

The researchers warned that worsening brain function could also trigger physical decline and early death.

Not just beauty sleep: Researchers found seven hours per night resulted in the highest score for every cognitive measure

University of London scientists showed how changes in sleep over a five-year period in late middle age affects cognitive function in later life.

The six standard tests measured memory, reasoning, vocabulary, phonemic fluency, semantic fluency and global cognitive status.

Between 7 and 8 per cent of those who slept longer than the recommended amount fared worse in all the cognitive tests apart from short-term verbal memory.

A quarter of women and 18 per cent of men who slept less suffered a decrease in their capacity for reasoning and vocabulary.

Around seven hours of good quality sleep is fundamental to human functioning and well-being, according to the study.

Sleep deprivation and sleepiness have adverse effects on performance, response times, errors of commission, and attention or concentration.  

Furthermore, sleep duration has been found to be associated with a wide range of quality of life measures, such as social functioning, mental and physical health, and early death.

Senior research fellow Jane Ferrie said: 'The main result to come out of our study was that adverse changes in sleep duration appear to be associated with poorer cognitive function in later-middle age.

'The detrimental effects of too much, too little and poor quality sleep on various aspects of health have begun to receive more attention.

'Given that our 24/7 society increasingly impinges on the lives of many people, it is important to consider what effects changes in sleep duration may have on health and well-being in the long term.'

Researchers found the ideal amount of sleep duration of seven hours per night resulted in the highest score for every cognitive measure, followed closely by six hours of nightly sleep.

Among men, cognitive function was similar for those who reported sleeping six, seven or eight hours - only short and long sleep durations of less than six hours or more than eight hours appeared to be associated with lower scores.

Read more...

Newquay's Penhallow 'worst UK hotel fire in 40 years'

The owners of a Cornish hotel destroyed by fire have been fined £80,000 and ordered to pay £62,000 costs for failing to meet fire safety standards.

Three people died as a result of the blaze at the Penhallow Hotel in Newquay in 2007.

The fire at Newquay's Penhallow Hotel was described by firefighters as the worst British hotel fire in 40 years.

The blaze ravaged the hotel, killing three people, on 18 August 2007.

At its peak more than 100 firefighters battled flames 30 feet (9.1m) high, which tore through the 54-bedroom hotel in the Cornish holiday resort shortly after midnight.

The victims, Monica Hughes, 86, her son Peter Hughes, 43 and Joan Harper, 80, were all from Staffordshire.

Mr Hughes, a teacher from Cheslyn Hay, jumped from a third floor window after trying in vain to save his mother.

In March 2011, the hotel's owner, O&C Holdsworth Ltd, of Harrison Road, Halifax, Yorkshire, admitted two charges relating to fire safety breaches.

They failed to ensure fire detectors and alarms were working at the hotel and failed to make an adequate risk assessment before the blaze.

Suitcases in corridor

Two directors of the company, Nicola Burfitt and John McMillan, both denied three charges relating to them personally, with the prosecution saying it was "not in the public interest" to pursue them.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

To lose two members of your family is beyond most people's imagination”

John HughesSon and brother of victims

It has been a long road to justice for the families of those who died in the fire.

It was revealed at an inquest in June 2009 that the hotel was not complying with fire safety regulations introduced in 2005.

The regulations stipulated, among other things, that each room must have its own smoke alarm.

Guests giving evidence said the fire alarm could not be heard on the third floor, where all of the people who died were staying.

Witnesses at the inquest also spoke of suitcases being left in the corridor overnight, which hampered their escape.

There was also criticism of some of the building's electrical wiring, which dated back to the 1960s.

The inquest heard from experts that arson was the most probable cause of the fire, which is thought to have started in the hotel bar, but it could not be conclusively proved.

Unanswered questions

Cornwall coroner Dr Emma Carlyon ordered the jury to return open verdicts on all three victims, saying there was insufficient evidence to rule they were unlawfully killed.

Joan Harper, Monica Hughes and Peter Hughes died in the Penhallow Hotel fire

Hotel manager Andy Woollam and his partner Sarah Jane Duffy, the assistant manager, both refused to answer questions regarding fire safety regulations at the hotel during the 18-day inquest.

Christopher Gunn, the night porter on the night of the fire, did the same. He and Mr Woollam gave contradictory evidence to the inquest about events.

Mr Gunn was arrested by Devon and Cornwall Police in 2008 in connection with the fire but later released without charge.

It was not until 2010 that a civil prosecution case began against the hotel's owners and several members of staff by Cornwall Council and Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service for breaches of health and safety laws.

Speaking after the hearing in March 2011, John Hughes, whose mother and brother died, said he hoped lessons would be learnt by the tourism industry.

Mr Hughes said: "I am pleased at least to have an admission of guilt from the owners of Penhallow. It has been hell for the last few years,"

"To lose two members of your family is beyond most people's imagination.

"The best thing that could come out of this is that the tourism agencies and hotels sit up and take note."

The fire also contributed to a decision by Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service to introduce 24-hour cover in the popular resort town, which has had more than a quarter of all fires in the county in the past five years.

Read more...

Police beat and kicked Muslim terror suspect during arrest, court hears

Babar Ahmad, accused of raising funds for al-Qaida, was allegedly assaulted by Met officers in south-west London in 2003

Babar Ahmad was taken to Charing Cross police station, where a custody officer said he was in a 'collapsing state', the court heard. Photograph: Dan Chung for the Guardian

A British Muslim man accused of raising funds for terrorist organisations was subjected to a "sustained and very violent assault" during his arrest by four specialist officers from the Metropolitan police, a court has heard.

The jury at Southwark crown court was told the officers punched, kicked and stamped on Babar Ahmad, during an early morning raid at his home in south-west London in 2003.

At one stage, the court heard, Ahmad, who was accused of raising money for al-Qaida, was forced into the Muslim prayer position as an officer shouted: "Where is your God now?"

Prosecuting counsel Jonathan Laidlaw QC told the jury: "The officers began to shout and swear, calling Babar Ahmad a 'fucking bastard' and a 'fucking cunt', and he was punched and beaten on the floor. On the floor the assault continued as his wife called out for the police to stop."

The assault had continued in the back of a police van where Ahmad was forced on to the floor and punched and kicked.

Laidlaw said: "The officer sitting nearest to Mr Ahmad's head asked him where he was born and when he replied London, that officer punched him in the back of the head. The same officer then lifted Mr Ahmad's upper body and held him in a headlock with both arms. After releasing him [the officer] said: 'You fucking cunt, you'll remember this day for the rest of your life.' "

Laidlaw said the attack left Ahmad with a series of injuries. "There were areas of bruising, reddening and grazes to Ahmad's head and neck, bruising to the chest, areas of bruising to Ahmad's back, extensive bruising and grazing of the arms. In effect, there were injuries all over the victim's body."

Police constables Mark Jones, Roderick James-Bowen and Nigel Cowley and Detective Constable John Donohue all deny assaulting Ahmad in December 2003.

Jurors heard Ahmad was asleep in bed with his wife when he was woken by cries of "police, police" shortly after 5am.

Laidlaw said officers raiding the property would have been briefed that the suspect had received terrorist training and had fought overseas in support of jihad. He said the arrest took place a few months after another terror suspect, Kamel Bourgass, stabbed an anti-terror squad officer to death during a raid on a house in Manchester.

But the prosecutor said that, despite fears Ahmad might present a danger to arresting officers, the reality was quite different.

"Dressed only in his pyjamas and barefooted, Mr Ahmad raised his arms above his head to indicate that he was not going to fight or to present any sort of danger or threat to the police," he said.

The court heard that James-Bowen, the first officer into the bedroom, threw himself at Ahmad, knocking him back against the window, which smashed.

Laidlaw said there was "no complaint" about this but that the officers then violently assaulted the "entirely submissive" Ahmad. He was handcuffed and led downstairs to the prayer room in his house. It was here that he was put in the prayer position and asked: "Where is your God now?", jurors were told.

"The mocking of Mr Ahmad's faith was to continue, and there were, as you will hear, further attempts to humiliate and to embarrass him," Laidlaw said.

The court was told that as part of its investigation into Ahmad's alleged terrorist connections MI5 had bugged the house. The jury was played a 10-minute recording that covered the time of Ahmad's arrest. Although largely indecipherable it was possible to hear screaming, shouting and what appeared to be muffled commands.

Ahmad was taken to Charing Cross police station where he says he was led to a caged area not covered by CCTV and again punched and kicked.

Laidlaw said the custody sergeant reported hearing his screams.

"[The custody sergeant] describes the screams this way: 'I would describe the screaming as what I believed was a man and that he was in prolonged discomfort and pain. It was definitely the sound of pain and not of him shouting out.' "

The custody officer said Ahmad was bloodied and bruised and in "a collapsing state" when he was brought in by the territorial support group officers, who claimed he had been violent.

Ahmad was released without charge shortly after his arrest. But the jury was told he has been in custody in the UK since his rearrest in 2004 following a request from the US over claims he helped raise money to fund terrorism.

The hearing continues.

Read more...

Scottish Election 2011: Alex Salmond out in front with alot of help from his 'friends'

Superficially at least, it’s not that hard to see why Alex Salmond might appear attractive to those who prefer style over substance. After all, he has contrived to present himself in the Scottish Parliament elections like something of a colossus.

Image 2 of 2

Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland Photo: GETTY IMAGES

By Alan Cochrane, Scottish Editor 4:26PM BST 04 May 2011

The astonishing thing is that his opponents have gone out of their way to assist him. His main opponent, Labour’s Iain Gray, has hardly laid a glove on him and, indeed, for the first four weeks and six days of the campaign he didn’t even try – relaunching his campaign to focus on the perfidy of the nationalist leader only ten days ago.

For the Tories, Annabel Goldie, whilst insisting she could keep him under control, made it plain that she’d be happy to continue working with Mr Salmond. Only the mostly distracted, and sometimes demented, Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott got stuck in when he wasn’t trying to rescue his party from oblivion, which was most of the time.

It’s also true that long gone are the days when he and his Scottish National Party were the poor relations of politics north of the border.

He travelled the country in a £1000 per hour Bell Long Ranger helicopter – and booked his triumphal entry to Edinburgh 72 hours before the polls even opened - whereas Mr Gray spent the last 24 hours of the campaign in a sleepless dash around the country in a Ford people carrier.

Mr Salmond attended the Royal Wedding on Friday, whereas his old adversary, Gordon Brown ( as well as Tony Blair and the aforementioned Gray) made do with watching it on television.

In spite of wishing to break up her United Kingdom, he has a first class working relationship with the Queen, spending, with his wife Moira, at least one night a year at Balmoral, in the same way as have UK Prime Ministers throughout Elizabeth The Second’s reign. He has generously advised Her Majesty that she would remain head of state of an independent Scotland if he ever succeeds in achieving his main political objective.

And he has struck even closer links with the Prince of Wales – the Duke of Rothesay, when he’s in Scotland – occasionally dropping in for a dram with Charles and Camilla at Birkhall, the heir to the throne’s Deeside retreat.

Whereas at one time Sir Sean Connery was his highest-profile backer he now has a fair old galaxy of stars who insist that Wee Eck ( his popular nickname) is their man. Brian Cox, the actor, and Midge Ure, the pop star, are among those who sing his praises.

But perhaps more importantly, Mr Salmond is being supported by several wealthy Scottish businessmen. Brian Souter, boss of Stagecoach, handed over £500,000 to the SNP’s election war chest, a sum that was matched in no time by another half million in smaller donations. Martin Gilbert, head of Aberdeen Asset Management, which looks after funds in excess of £180 billion and Jim Spowart, founder of Intelligent Finance, also support him for First Minister, although it’s not known of they’re donors, too.

One of his strongest supporters is Sir David Murray, present owner of Glasgow Rangers FC and a leading Scottish entrepreneur, who says he wants Salmond to continue as First Minister but insists he doesn’t want independence.

It is just this sort of support that has created the momentum that has helped drive the SNP to the top of the opinion polls, with a stupendous double digit lead, just as polling stations open for business.

Mr Salmond is playing a canny, if duplicitous, game – asking for the voters to back him as First Minister whilst playing down his demand to end the 300-plus-year political Union with England.

If pressed he’ll say that a good result on May 5 will give him the “moral authority” to continue with his plan to break up Britain. But otherwise the “I (for independence) word” hardly ever leaves his lips.

However, I have no doubt that even Mr Salmond must have watched open mouthed as the Labour effort imploded so spectacularly. It wasn’t just the Battle of the Sandwich Bar, when Mr Gray took refuge in one instead of standing up to anti-cuts protestors, although that was probably one of the campaign’s seminal – and most hilarious - moments.

One of the biggest problems was undoubtedly personal. Even those closest to him would have to admit that Iain Gray, although earnest, diligent and clever, is little more than a dogged plodder – straight out of Central Casting’s image of a traditional Scottish Old Labour loyalist.

And although he insisted it was all deliberate, to spend the bulk of his campaign attacking the Tories, instead of the SNP, was madness. Pure and simple.

Miss Goldie is second only to Salmond in the popularity stakes and she’s confident of her vote holding up reasonably well - in spite of what the polls suggest – and seeks to tell the Scots that they cannot continue to have everything for nothing – free tuition fees and prescription charges being but the latest in a long line of taxpayer-funded freebies.

She’ll still be a distant third come polling day but although she doesn’t admit it, publicly at least, she wants Salmond to win. Although he denies it, too, David Cameron is also backing the Nats, believing that the Westminster coalition could work better with them.

Several of his supporters, including some newspapers, back Alex Salmond personally while claiming to oppose independence. However, from this vantage point the belief that it’s possible to have Salmond without independence – or Eck-Lite, as this column christened the phenomenon – appears hopelessly misguided.

He may be a more attractive choice than a lacklustre Labour leader but to imagine that Alex Salmond can be given a new mandate on Thursday and then subjected to strict Unionist control, thereafter, is dangerously naïve.

It is precisely the same mistake that the Labour devolutionists made in 1997 when they said that giving Scotland back its parliament would kill off nationalism.

Last time I looked Alex Salmond looks very much alive to me. And the polls suggest he will get another shot in the arm on Thursday.

Inch by inch, through a mixture of ineptitude and reckless concession, the United Kingdom is being undermined and Alex Salmond’s smug grin grows wider by the day.

Read more...

Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project

All of us in the green movement are lost before the planet's real nightmare: not too little fossil fuel – but too much

Illustration: Daniel Pudles Photograph: Daniel Pudles

You think you're discussing technologies, and you quickly discover that you're discussing belief systems. The battle among environmentalists over how or whether our future energy is supplied is a cipher for something much bigger: who we are, who we want to be, how we want society to evolve. Beside these concerns, technical matters – parts per million, costs per megawatt hour, cancers per sievert – carry little weight. We choose our technology – or absence of technology – according to a set of deep beliefs: beliefs that in some cases remain unexamined.

The case against abandoning nuclear power, for example, is a simple one: it will be replaced either by fossil fuels or by renewables that would otherwise have replaced fossil fuels. In either circumstance, greenhouse gases, other forms of destruction and human deaths and injuries all rise.

The case against reducing electricity supplies is just as clear. For example, the Zero Carbon Britain report published by the Centre for Alternative Technology urges a 55% cut in overall energy demand by 2030 – a goal I strongly support. It also envisages a near-doubling of electricity production. The reason is that the most viable means of decarbonising both transport and heating is to replace the fuels they use with low-carbon electricity. Cut the electricity supply and we're stuck with oil and gas. If we close down nuclear plants, we must accept an even greater expansion of renewables than currently proposed. Given the tremendous public resistance to even a modest increase in windfarms and new power lines, that's going to be tough.

What the nuclear question does is to concentrate the mind about the electricity question. Decarbonising the economy involves an increase in infrastructure. Infrastructure is ugly, destructive and controlled by remote governments and corporations. These questions are so divisive because the same world-view tells us that we must reduce emissions, defend our landscapes and resist both the state and big business. The four objectives are at odds.

But even if we can accept an expansion of infrastructure, the technocentric, carbon-counting vision I've favoured runs into trouble. The problem is that it seeks to accommodate a system that cannot be accommodated: a system that demands perpetual economic growth. We could, as Zero Carbon Britain envisages, become carbon-free by 2030. Growth then ensures that we have to address the problem all over again by 2050, 2070 and thereon after.

Accommodation makes sense only if the economy is reaching a steady state. But the clearer the vision becomes, the further away it seems. A steady state economy will be politically possible only if we can be persuaded to stop grabbing. This in turn will be feasible only if we feel more secure. But the global race to the bottom and its destruction of pensions, welfare, public services and stable employment make people less secure, encouraging us to grasp as much for ourselves as we can.

If this vision looks implausible, consider the alternatives. In the latest edition of his excellent magazine The Land, Simon Fairlie responds furiously to my suggestion that we should take industry into account when choosing our energy sources. His article exposes a remarkable but seldom noticed problem: that most of those who advocate an off-grid, land-based economy have made no provision for manufactures. I'm not talking about the pointless rubbish in the FT's How To Spend Itsupplement. I'm talking about the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles (except the hand-loomed tweed Fairlie suggests we wear), ceramics and soap: commodities that almost everyone sees as the barest possible requirements.

Are people like Fairlie really proposing that we do without them altogether? If not, what energy sources do they suggest we use? Charcoal would once again throw industry into direct competition with agriculture, spreading starvation and ensuring that manufactured products became the preserve of the very rich. (Remember, as EA Wrigley points out, that half the land surface of Britain could produce enough charcoal to make 1.25m tonnes of bar iron – a fraction of current demand – and nothing else.) An honest environmentalism needs to explain which products should continue to be manufactured and which should not, and what the energy sources for these manufactures should be.

There's a still bigger problem here: even if we make provision for some manufacturing but, like Fairlie, envisage a massive downsizing and a return to a land-based economy, how do we take people with us? Where is the public appetite for this transition?

A third group tries to avoid such conflicts by predicting that the problem will be solved by collapse: doom is our salvation. Economic collapse, these people argue, is imminent and expiatory. I believe this is wrong on both counts.

Last week something astonishing happened: Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, revealed that peak oil has already happened. "We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006." If this is true, we should be extremely angry with the IEA. In 2005 its executive director mocked those who predicted peak oil as "doomsayers". Until 2008 (two years after the IEA now says it happened) the agency continued to dismiss the possibility that peak oil would occur.

But this also raises an awkward question for us greens: why hasn't the global economy collapsed as we predicted? Yes, it wobbled, though largely for other reasons. Now global growth is back with a vengeance: it reached 4.6% last year, and the IMF predicts roughly the same for 2011 and 2012. The reason, as Birol went on to explain, is that natural gas liquids and tar sands are already filling the gap. Not only does the economy appear to be more resistant to resource shocks than we assumed, but the result of those shocks is an increase, not a decline, in environmental destruction.

The problem we face is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much. As oil declines, economies will switch to tar sands, shale gas and coal; as accessible coal declines, they'll switch to ultra-deep reserves (using underground gasification to exploit them) and methane clathrates. The same probably applies to almost all minerals: we will find them, but exploiting them will mean trashing an ever greater proportion of the world's surface. We have enough non-renewable resources of all kinds to complete our wreckage of renewable resources: forests, soil, fish, freshwater, benign weather. Collapse will come one day, but not before we have pulled everything down with us.

And even if there were an immediate economic cataclysm, it's not clear that the result would be a decline in our capacity for destruction. In east Africa, for example, I've seen how, when supplies of paraffin or kerosene are disrupted, people don't give up cooking; they cut down more trees. History shows us that wherever large-scale collapse has occurred, psychopaths take over. This is hardly conducive to the rational use of natural assets.

All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess. None of our chosen solutions break the atomising, planet-wrecking project. I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognise the contradictions we confront. But even that could be a tall order.

Read more...

Libyan rebels to receive £1.8 billion trust fund

Libya's opposition is to get access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi.

The Libya Contact Group will seek to unfreeze Libyan state assets to replenish the rebels' coffers through the initiative at a meeting in Rome.

That would include allowing the rebels to sell oil from territory under their control, but there are legal questions over who exactly owns the oil, given that Gaddafi is still in power.

There are also legal issues over whether assets owned by the regime and seized abroad could be given to the Libyan leader's opponents.

The rebels' National Transitional Council has said it urgently needs supplies of food and medicine as well as salaries for state employees.

The council said that without urgent funds from the West, the rebel leadership will face food shortages within three to four weeks and a humanitarian crisis.

The meeting, which brings together 22 Western and Middle Eastern countries along with the UN, African Union and Arab League, will be attended by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and Foreign Secretary William Hague. The money could then be paid back when the issue of oil sales is resolved.

His French counterpart, Alain Juppe, said: "It's not easy. There are Libyan assets that are frozen and for legal reasons unfreezing them is difficult."

The French foreign minister said a key objective of the meeting was to build contacts with officials who have already defected from the Gaddafi regime and others who want to leave it.

"There are a lot of officials from Tripoli who want to talk. We are going to try to coordinate," he said.

Read more...