PAKISTAN

Analysis: Tackling smog will take more than ‘lockdowns and prohibitions’

Experts say poor air quality "not a seasonal issue"; call for holistic reforms, including cleaner fuels, checking emissions, legal reforms.

Irfan Aslam Published November 6, 2024

OVER the past many years, smog in Lahore has been a persistent challenge. The city regularly tops the charts for the worst air quality as soon as the winter arrives.

Even when the citizens of Lahore accepted hazardous air as their fait accompli, this year, pollution reached new peaks.

The Air Quality Index (AQI) has crossed 1,000 for the first time since the monitoring of smog started. On Sunday, the maximum AQI was 1,173.

According to the Pakistan Air Quality Initiative (PAQI), the pollution of PM2.5 — fine particulate matter in the air that causes the most damage to health — pollution increased by 25 per cent in 2024 compared to 2023. The average pollution level also went up by 23pc compared to last year.

Experts say poor air quality ‘not a seasonal issue’; call for holistic reforms, including cleaner fuels, checking emissions, legal reforms, policy continuity

Even in the face of the challenge of catastrophic proportions, experts say the government’s actions of enforcing ‘green lockdown’ and declaring smog a ‘calamity’ are inadequate.

Under the ‘green lockdown’, 11 pollution hotspots around Shimla Hill were identified, and construction activities, running commercial generators, motorcycle rickshaws, and open barbecue activities were banned after 8pm.

Abid Omar, the founder of PAQI, says similar prohibitions have been imposed in the past, sometimes on brick kilns and sometimes on plastic bags, but they haven’t worked.

“The government does not have the capacity to implement its policies,” he says, adding there are over 10,000 brick kilns across Punjab, and it’s “almost impossible” to monitor all of them.

Farmers across Punjab “can’t be practically stopped” from burning their stubble.

Environmental lawyer Ahmad Rafay Alam echoes similar views.

He says the government imposed a lockdown in only a few areas of Lahore when the issue is faced by the entire city, province and as well as region.

“Gujranwala, Faisalabad and other cities are also having air quality issues, but we don’t know what’s going on there due to lack of monitoring,” Mr Alam says.

The government amps up its efforts to control the smog when the haze starts getting denser in winter. But Mr Alama says the pro­blem is not seasonal as it “afflicts the city throughout the year”.

“It only gets more visible in winter due to cold weather conditions. It’s not a problem only for Lahore as it is being suggested.”

Practical solutions

The government can take inspiration from other cities around the world that faced the challenge of smog but overcame it by implementing several reforms.

During the COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai last year, the “success stories” of six cities — Accra (Ghana), Barran­q­u­illa (Colombia), Beijing (China), Jakarta (Indonesia), Kampala (Uganda), and New York City (USA) — were shared.

According to a UN Environment programme report, the administration in Beijing launched efforts to tackle air pollution in the 1990s.

In 2013, Beijing announced a five-year action under which a major overhaul was brought into the transport sector.

The city made it easier for the cit­izens to buy electric cars and made access to fossil fuel cars more difficult. The trucks were rerouted to use beltways and by­pass heavily populated areas. Other steps included the reintroduction of bike-sharing schemes and the extension of the subway system.

“The plan focused on limiting the use of coal-fired boilers, providing people with cleaner fuels to burn at home, and restructuring industry to reduce emissions,” the UN report adds.

As a result of these measures, cleaner air started becoming visible by the end of 2017.

The annual average PM2.5 concentration also came down by 35pc to 58 micrograms per cubic metre compared to 2013.

The concentration of sulphur dioxide also dropped by more than 93pc from 1998 levels, and nitrous dioxide fell by nearly 38pc, according to the UN report.

Policy continuity

PAQI’s Mr Omar says the government should make short-, medium- and long-term policies to control pollution.

He says 60pc of the air pollution is produced by emissions from vehicles running on petrol and diesel, while crop burning is responsible for 10pc.

He adds that fossil fuel vehicles run across the world, including in developed countries, but air pollution is not a serious problem there because of cleaner fuel.

“The easiest and cheapest solution is to upgrade oil refineries [and] the government has already paid these refineries for this upgrade.”

The upgrade from Euro-2 to Euro 4 or 5 would increase the cost by only Rs2 to Rs2.5, but it won’t pollute the air, Mr Omar estimates.

Another issue is the poor waste disposal mechanism due to which people burn trash. The government should take steps to properly dispose of this waste through landfill sites, he adds.

Mr Alam says solutions to the air quality problem are expensive and require consistency in policies for at least a decade.

He proposes constant monitoring to stop stubble burning, which takes place in the months of April-May and September-October.

There is also an issue of monitoring the air quality, says Mr Alam, adding the government only has five monitors.

He also points out that most of the environmental laws were drafted in the 1990s. They are now “outdated” as they don’t adequately address the challenges being faced today.

According to the law, the government can only impose fines on vehicles causing pollution. This alone is not enough, and there should be steps to reduce the overall usage of cars, Mr Alam says.

Published in Dawn, November 6th, 2024

The “Man from Bethlehem” is coming to the UK in November 

 

NOVEMBER 5, 2023

Paul Seligman introduces an important series of events happening later this month. 

Scientist, author and indefatigable and independent campaigner for the Palestinian cause, Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, will soon be leaving his home in Bethlehem to embark on another monumental speaking tour to strengthen, broaden and deepen the Palestine solidarity movement.   

He starts in London on November 11th, and then visits Bristol, Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, the Scottish Highlands, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic and the USA.  

At each destination, Professor Qumsiyeh will speak at up to four engagements every day, with the overall tour theme being “Land, Nature, Justice”.  

Professor Qumsiyeh, a winner of multiple awards from peace foundations and other institutes, works hard and effectively at reaching new audiences and reinvigorating existing activists. “I spent 53 days in Australia and New Zealand (Aotearoa) earlier this year,” Prof Qumsiyeh says. “I gave 212 talks, and addressed 15,000 people, speaking to Aboriginal people, Maori, Churches, Mosques, Rotary clubs, environmental groups, museums, scientists, members of parliament in both countries and local and national officials.”   

We can’t offer Maori or Aboriginal people in the UK and Ireland, but I think we will include most of the other categories mentioned, including private visits to meet national politicians at the Senedd in Cardiff, Stormont in Belfast and Leinster House in Dublin. 

This ability to enthuse audiences outside of the established groups of supporters for Palestinian rights makes Prof Qumsiyeh a much in-demand speaker wherever he goes.  

His knowledge and interests go beyond those of his own people: “The situation in Palestine is extremely urgent. We face genocide and ecocide, and a drive to regional war that may lead to a catastrophic global war. Even without these factors, our planet faces an urgent need to mitigate and reverse climate change and to halt the rapidly accelerating extinction of animals, plants and entire species and ecosystems worldwide,” he observes.  

As the Founder and Director of the Palestine Institute for Biodioversity and Sustainability at Bethlehem University, Prof Qumsiyeh is well placed to talk about Climate Justice. He will take part in a Zoom panel on this subject, as part of Climate Change Week Wales.  

Two other events in Wales exemplify how pro-Palestinian groups, in both these cases Palestine Solidarity Campaign, can work with new partners and attract new audiences.  

Newport PSC hold a joint meeting with XR (Extinction Rebellion) on November 13th, and the Welsh Centre for International Affairs and the Academi Heddwch Cymru (Wales’ first ‘Peace Institute’) will hear from Mazin at the prestigious Temple of Peace and Health in Cardiff on November 15th.  

A more unusual engagement for Mazin will be when he addresses the audience at the latest ‘Big Sing for Palestine’ event, presented by the Songs for Freedom choir with Charlotte Church and Côr Cochion (Reds’ Choir), in Cardiff’s historic Tabernacl.  

Do try and attend at least one of the events on this tour.  

You should expect to leave feeling more motivated, hopeful and empowered than when you arrived.  

Paul Seligman was conceived on a kibbutz, raised in a Zionist family in Cardiff. After High School, he received a year’s training in Israel to be an elite Zionist youth leader. He subsequently lived in Israel on border settlements for several years and served in the IDF. After becoming disillusioned, he returned to Wales and has been involved in campaigns for justice, and Palestinian rights for some 50 years. He has family in Israel as well as Palestinian friends. He posts on X as @PaulMSeligman. He has written previously for Labour Hub on the issue of Palestine solidarity here. 

Main image: Mazin Qumsiyeh. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xTTHYOvwgU. Author: PeaceActionMaine, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

UK

An alternative needs-based budget

NOVEMBER 5, 2025

Özlem Onaran analyses the strengths and weaknesses of Rachel Reeves’ first Budget.

The budget marks a substantial increase in public spending, representing about 3% of GDP per year. But there are three major issues I want to highlight.

First, how will new public spending pledges affect ownership, particularly in healthcare and renewable energy? Is it going to mostly take the form of subsides and loans for private profit-making corporations instead of expanding public ownership?

There is a major issue with the new sectors of renewable energy. The government talks a lot about subsidies for carbon capture and storage. Not only is this not very green – some activists say its greenwashing – the technology is not greatly trusted. But leaving these issues aside, if it is taking the form of subsidies for expanding privately owned energy production, that’s a major issue.  Similarly there are concerns about subsidising nuclear energy.

And when it comes to health, where will the new money go? There is a lot of talk about transfers to private hospitals, which is not the kind of public sector growth I would envisage.

The second issue is about the self-imposed so-called  fiscal credibility rules: obviously it is  positive to see the gain to the economy and society coming from public investment, but this is very much limited to physical infrastructure investment which the government accepts can be funded by government borrowing. So it’s okay to borrow to build for schools and hospitals but this narrow understanding of infrastructure investment fails to recognise what feminist economists call social infrastructure  – the wages of the teachers, nurses, carers, etc., working in those school buildings or hospitals.

In our national accounts, conventional economists see these wages as day to day spending. The government is very much sticking with that conventional wisdom, and failing to recognise that we cannot  operate those schools and hospitals without those workers being paid.

Most importantly, these so called day-to-day current wage payments are actually a massive contribution to productivity. For example, evidence is now emerging that Sure Start centres have led to a more productive workforce.

So this is a major straitjacket in terms of how much the government can borrow. And while nurses and teachers have accepted their pay offers, this will not last for ever, so it was an unnecessary straitjacket to make the pledge that the government would balance its books on day-to-day spending.

Another issue I take with the fiscal credibility rules is how they define public debt. There is a welcome change to define public debt as the government’s net financial assets, financial assets minus liabilities, and taking the Bank of England out of that calculation.  This increases the area of manoeuvre in terms of government borrowing, but it’s not clear why the government is only sticking with net financial assets and thereby excluding real public assets. For example the impacts of borrowing to invest in renewable energy on the budget – they should be neutral. Because if these are publicly owned assets to invest in solar farms and wind turbines, this is going to increase the public assets in real physical infrastructure. There is some unnecessary fiscal conservatism there.

My third big concern, which Richard Burgon MP has campaigned around, is that the proposals for taxing wealth in this budget are way too modest. Similar to Richard’s petition, we have formulated another progressive wealth tax proposal for Unite the Union who have moved a motion and won approval for it at the TUC Congress.

It proposes a progressive net wealth tax that taxes the top 1% of the wealthiest households. It would affect an individual who has net wealth of above £2.2 million (the top 1%): they would be taxed at a marginal rate of 1%. It is progressive – if you were in the top 0.5% , owning wealth above £3.6 million, you would be taxed at a marginal rate of 2%; and for those with net wealth above £11.2 million (the top 0.1%) they will pay a marginal rate of 4% on their wealth exceeding £11.2 million.

Even if the wealthy use all their creative accountants to avoid half of the tax they have to pay , it would raise £46 billion, £69bn if 25% is avoided, and £78 billion if 15% of the tax is avoided.

Just to put this in context, Rachel Reeves’ budget, which has been celebrated as a massive ‘tax and spend’ budget is planning to raise just an increase of £40 billion in taxes.  So that would be a massive increase in tax revenues.

We also propose for simplicity an alternative flat tax rate of 1% on the top 1% wealthiest individuals (a household with wealth above £4.01m). This would raise, in the most pessimistic scenario of  50% tax avoidance, £17bn, £25bn, if 25% avoided, or £28bn, if 15% avoided.

All the celebrated changes to Capital Gains Tax and tax on private equity managers’ performance fees (carried interest) will mean an increase there, but not even as much as expected by the managers themselves! One private equity manager said, “I don’t usually drink but I went out to celebrate after the announcement!” An increase from 28% to 32% on “carried interest” is ridiculous given that the top marginal income tax rate is 45% if you are earning above £125,140. Similarly Capital Gains Tax could have gone much further with the potential to have raised up to £15.2bn a year, instead of the estimated £2.49bn by 2029/30, if it were aligned with the top marginal income tax.

Reforming business and agriculture relief in inheritance tax further could have brought in up to £1.4bn.

And there were missed reforms to National Insurance too: extending it to investment income and abolishing the upper earnings limit.

There was nothing on universities in the Budget announcement and the tuition fee rise  announced subsequently, five days later, is exactly what I feared was coming.  It’s very bad news: the average student has about £50,000 of debt when they graduate and will find it very difficult to get a mortgage with that level of debt, without family support, and it will just deepen the level of inequality in terms of wealth and living standards as well as access to higher education. Tuition fees should have been scrapped and funding for education could have been financed by a progressive tax on the wealth of the top 1%.

Budget settlements for the departments for health, local government and education also need to include additional funding to meet the cost of paying the higher minimum wage for workers in vital low paid roles – early education, childcare and social care as well as the higher employer contribution to National Insurance.  

I welcome the increase in the minimum wage but I actually think it is not enough and needs to be increased gradually to reach the level of a Living Wage. Currently, it does not match the cost of living increases faced by low paid workers.

The additional £600 million of funding to local authorities to support social care will also likely not be enough to compensate for years of underfunding or for the increase in the minimum wage and national insurance contributions. This lack of social care funding will continue to put pressures on the NHS and leave unmet needs in the community. It will be women picking up the care – unpaid, impacting their own health and access to the paid labour market. This both deepens gender inequality and is economically inefficient.

There is a £1.8bn commitment to fund the much-needed expansion in early education and childcare. But Women’s Budget Group is concerned that there is still a gap in funding for the hours promised to parents as ‘free’ and the cost to providers of delivering them, particularly for three and four year olds.

The continued freezing of fuel duty is the opposite of what’s needed !We need to drastically reduce car use.

The 1.7% uplift in benefits  is less than the 2.6% expected rate of inflation for 2025. So the cost-of-living crisis continues and is deepening for people on benefits.

And there is nothing about undoing some of the punitive measures introduced since 2010: the two-child limit, the benefit cap and the sanctions.

If we do the right thing, socially necessary sectors will grow – health, education, the green economy, energy efficiency, renewable energy, public transport and social housing. At the same time, we have to de-grow some socially harmful sectors substantially. For example, why do we not scrap Trident?

My proposal would be to start with the needs that we have. Education from cradle to grave, including further and higher education, is one of the things I see as essential, particularly in the age of Artificial Intelligence. If we are to share the fruits of technological change, we need access to higher and further education if people choose it. And while I can see the need for expanding prison funding today, improving both the working conditions as well as the conditions of the prisoners and giving them the opportunities for personal development, if we invest in a properly funded education system from cradle to grave we would probably need fewer prisons in the longer run. I would love to  see a future where we can turn some of our prison buildings into training and culture centres or centres for early childhood education.

Özlem Onaran Is Professor of Economics, Co-Director of Institute of Political Economy, Governance, Finance and Accountability and Associate Head of the School of Accounting, Finance & Economics – Research and Knowledge Exchange at the University of Greenwich. This article is an edited version of contributions she made to an online Budge Review panel meeting on Monday November 4th, organised by Arise – a Festival of Left Ideas, the full video of which is here.

Image: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/business/2024/10/31/uks-labour-govt-hikes-taxes-in-first-budget/ Licence: Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0

 

UK

No to the Telford Arms Fair! Protest on 20th November 2024

As evidence mounts that campaigning against arms companies is having a real impact, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and others are planning a new protest this month.

The SDSC Arms Fair plans to return to Telford International Centre in November (18-20th). This arms fair, the Specialist Defence and Security Convention UK, focuses on military equipment for front-line infantry soldiers.

It will include exhibitors from a number of arms companies, including those deeply complicit in the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, such as:

• Elbit Systems, manufacturer of bombs, mortars and drones, and Israel’s largest privately held arms company
• L3 Harris, maker of surveillance, night vision and targeting equipment and supplier of bomb release mechanisms for Israel’s F35 aircraft, which has been confirmed as being involved in the deaths of civilians in Gaza
• Ultra Electronics, which has been granted numerous arms export licences to Israel by the UK Government and has been involved in the development of the F35 warplane.

Stop SDSC-UK, a coalition of groups from the Quakers, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Extinction Rebellion, Palestine Solidarity groups and others will be saying no to this dreadful arms fair.

The protest organisers say: “Telford International Centre should be where people go to enjoy fun events like bicycle or model shows, concerts or pantomimes: it should not be involved in death and destruction. This arms fair was chased out of Malvern, when it was called 3CDSE. We can tell this arms fair it is not welcome in Telford!

“We believe the arms industry has skills and capabilities that should be put to peaceful purposes, and want to see new, better jobs for those working in the industry, as part of a green transition.”

The UK is one of the biggest exporters of arms globally, including to repressive regimes and those suspected of violating international humanitarian law. It has sold billions of pounds worth of arms – including planes, bombs and missiles – to Saudi Arabia, despite the state waging a war in Yemen which has killed many civilians and created a humanitarian crisis. It is also a player in the current horrors in Palestine and Lebanon.

As well as the incalculable human cost of “bleeding edge technology”, the weapons industry also squanders resources badly needed in our society and drives climate breakdown.

Campaigning works!

After a year-long campaign against its premises by Palestine Action and local community groups, Barclays PLC has sold all of its shareholdings in Elbit Systems Ltd. Until recently, Barclays owned over 16,000 shares in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons company.

Global Justice UK Director Nick Dearden hailed the decision as “fantastic news.”

Elbit Systems itself is also thought to be losing money at its drone engine factory near Birmingham, following years of campaigning by Palestine Action.

Get involved!

Check out the Stop SDSC website: tinyurl.com/STOPSDSC You can find maps, updates, and schedules as they become available via the Stop SDSC website or the CAAT Event page.

Image: https://flickr.com/photos/campaignagainstarmstrade/16578513455/in/photolist-rfZdsT-2jfQsz8-2nmkBTJ-2nmibnJ-2nmcRje-2nnVnCy-2nmi7SC-2nmcJkp-2nmhRor-2nmkm1b-2nmi89S-2nmi6w6-2nmi2N1-2nmj5mG-2nmkxKU-2nmibEV-2nmhTBu-2nmhSjQ-2nmhWVv-2nmhUmR-rdFR8q-2nmhQRj-pyusby-qjdHpx-rdFT5b-qYsquG-qj1w8j-VgnAbu-2nmi5vD-2nmhTSX-2aib7KQ-7zWc93-HzfzA7-JoAmJa-7uj6Zz-HzfBco-J5LVcJ-J5LoXW-LBkZ8-JmpkA3-JmpiyN-JmpeXE-HzfvHY-HzdPr6-HzdNUe-HzdNhx-JvnPqV-JmpqT7-JmpjAY-J5Lmwd. Campaign Against Arms Trade Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic CC BY-SA 2.0

UK

Higher Education is Broken, Tuition Fee Rises Won’t Fix It

Amplifying socialist voices, supporting frontline struggles, building international solidarity.

4th November 2024Leave a Commenton Higher Education is Broken, Tuition Fee Rises Won’t Fix It

“At a time when more and more students are feeling politically disillusioned, out of touch policies like tuition fee increases will only push more young people towards apathy or even radicalisation into the far right.”

By Fraser McGuire

The announcement that students in Higher Education are set to be hit with an increase to their tuition fees to £10,500 by 2029 is both unfair and economically short sighted. The funding model for our universities is broken at a structural level. Raising tuition fees (and therefore student debt) at a time when the number of students unable to pay their loan increases each year is like trying to bail water out of a sinking ship with a teaspoon.

A report from the IFS stated that the government could expect to make a loss on all student loans, regardless of whether they were repaid in full or not, and current total student debt stands at over £220 billion.

It is vital that the government adopt progressive policies to tackle the financial issues plaguing our marketised Higher Education system. Richard Burgon MP recently introduced a petition to Parliament detailing how a 2% Wealth Tax on assets over £10 million would raise up to £24 billion annually and provide the money desperately needed to fix many of our public services. Combined with other policies like the equalisation of Capital Gains Tax with Income Tax rates, and measures to end loopholes in the oil and gas windfall tax and stop state subsidies to fossil fuel giants, the government could raise £45 billion.

There is a clear inequality even between different universities, which further evidences the anarchy of the funding model. Some, like the University of Manchester have unrestricted reserves of over £1 billion, and see an annual operating surplus of over £119 million, while many others are on the brink of bankruptcy and almost half of UK vice-chancellors expect their university to run at a loss this year.

The marketisation of our education system isn’t just unsustainable, it’s leading to an increase in casualisation and insecure working conditions for staff. Roughly a third of university staff are on fixed term contracts, 41 per cent are paid hourly wages, and over 3000 employees are on zero hours contracts nationally. Furthermore, many universities have cracked down on student activism and protests, in 2022, the University of Sheffield informed two student activists that they had hired private investigators to investigate them for their alleged involvement in a peaceful occupation. Just five months later, the University of Manchester employed the National Eviction Team to remove twenty student occupiers from another peaceful protest over the rising cost of living. Both students and staff are being punished by marketisation.

Another example of a progressive solution to the broken Higher Education funding model would be the adoption of an ‘education levy’ on graduate employers. Research from London Economics for UCU, shows that the government could afford to abolish UK student fees through either a 3 per cent increase to corporation tax, or a levy of around 1% on employer National Insurance contributions for graduates. It seems that the decision to increase tuition fees is merely a political choice, and one that avoids tackling the root of inequality in our society and taking on the super-rich.

Young members of the Labour Party will remember Keir Starmer pledging his support for the abolition of tuition fees during his campaign to be Labour leader in 2020. At a time when more and more students are feeling politically disillusioned, out of touch policies like tuition fee increases will only push more young people towards apathy or even radicalisation into the far right.

---

• Fraser McGuire is the Chair of East Midlands Unite Hospitality, Manchester Labour Students’ Co- Chair, and an organiser for Arise: A Festival Of Left Ideas. You can follow him on Twitter/X and Instagram.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

UK

Activists rally to say “No US Nukes at Lakenheath!” – CND London

4th November 20241 Commenton Activists rally to say “No US Nukes at Lakenheath!” – CND London

“Over the past five years, British spending on nuclear weapons rose by a staggering 43%, and the present government is pledged to raise it still further.”

By Christine Shawcroft, London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

An intrepid group of peace campaigners totally repulsed a missile attack from Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden at Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk on 2nd November. Unfortunately, the missiles were cardboard and the American politicians (or crook in one case) were CND supporters with face masks on.

The dramatized battle, choreographed and presented by CND’s new general secretary, Sophie Bolt, was fun, but with a serious message: we are all in danger from the proposal to return US missiles to the Lakenheath airbase.

The rally outside RAF (more accurately, USAF) Lakenheath was well supported by London Region CND and local groups including Nottingham, Leicester, Norwich and elsewhere, as well as the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace. Local speakers explained that the noise from the jets at the base is deafening; people living in the vicinity can’t use their gardens or open their windows in the summer – and are even reluctant to let their children play outdoors!

Melissa Parke, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) travelled to Lakenheath from her home in Geneva, Switzerland, to join us. Focussing on nuclear dangers in Europe, she emphasised the need for peace in Ukraine. ICAN is the organisation that won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work promoting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the UN in July 2017.

Other excellent contributions included Kirsten Bayes Campaign Against Arms Trade, Green Party peer Jenny Jones and former Green MEP Catherine Rowett. Peter Burt from Nukewatch outlined the shameful history of nukes at Lakenheath, including some near-miss nuclear accidents. Bimal Khadka from MedAct, described the work of Don’t Bank on the Bomb UK, and played a harrowing soundtrack of what happens when a nuclear bomb is detonated.

We were told that the UK government spends billions every year on contracts to companies like Babcock International, Lockheed Martin, Rolls Royce and BAE systems – over the past five years, British spending on nuclear weapons rose by a staggering 43%, and the present government is pledged to raise it still further. The companies involved are also funded through investments made by banks and financial institutions. Your pension fund might be funding weapons of mass destruction.

Planes from Lakenheath have been involved in joint exercises with Israeli and Saudi air forces as well as being deployed in the Middle East as part of NATO forces. The F35 planes cost £58 million, and when flying costs £28,000 an hour. On a ‘normal’ day there are between 15-30 flights a day from the base, but during exercises and military interventions that number massively increases. Militarism is also very bad news for the climate. Around 6% of global greenhouse gases come directly from military activity. Nuclear weapons sites have contaminated land and water with radioactive waste which is lethal for at least 100,000 years.

Lakenheath Peace Alliance described the camp and its work, musicians and singers entertained us, and CND Vice Chair Carol Turner, concluded proceedings with a mercifully short speech on what was an overcast and drizzling day.

Finally, I noticed a sign on the gate saying that tobacco is prohibited on the base apart from in a few designated areas. Because, of course, tobacco is very bad for your health, but nuclear weapons will bring us peace and freedom!

• Lakenheath Alliance for Peace holds vigils outside the main gate at Lakenheath between 12 and 2pm on every last Saturday of the month, apart from December.
• The next International Peace Camp will be held from 14th to 25th April, 2025, and will be supported by London Region CND. There will be other CND demonstrations at the base in 2025.
• You can follow the London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on Twitter/X.