Dropping Trident will lead to a richer, safer Britain

Labour should consider the non-renewal of the trident nuclear weapons system as part of its future defence and security policy, writes Nick Brown.

It is not possible to envisage a situation where Britain would, independently, use its nuclear weapons system without the support of our NATO allies. In the instance that Britain did use nuclear weapons, international law dictates that this would be in response to nuclear weapons being used against us, in which case the Trident system would have failed to have fulfilled its main purpose; that of a deterrent. Our membership of NATO provides us with collective protection under its nuclear umbrella, with the Trident system acting as an unnecessary duplicate of this.

The nature of international politics is changing. The threats faced today are not the same as in the second half of the 20th century. International instability is caused by factors such as terrorism, cyberwarfare, economic, political and social upheaval, as well as environmental issues. Many of these are key development issues which pose a threat to international security. An independent nuclear deterrent does nothing to address any of these factors. It distracts attention and diverts resources from the real challenges facing the world today and in the future.

In the current economic circumstances, and with large cuts to government budgets including the defence budget, it is difficult to justify spending nearly £100bn on a new nuclear weapons system, which we cannot use , which does not protect Britain from the threats to international security today and which does nothing to address these.

Britain under the Labour Government can rightly, and proudly, make claim to have played a leading role in promoting the international development agenda, both domestically and internationally. This helped to raise Britain’s standing on the world stage and increase our respect and influence abroad. ‘Soft’ power is an increasingly important aspect of international relations. By making a commitment to non-renewal of our independent nuclear weapons system and increasing our attention to new and emerging threats, Britain (and the Labour Party) can remain at the forefront of the international development cause, as well as taking a forward-thinking approach to our own defence and security policy.

By non-renewal of our independent nuclear weapons system, Britain will be setting an example to other nations who are either developing or aspire to have nuclear weapons. It would allow Britain to play a leading role in securing new nuclear weapons free zones, including in Africa and the Middle East. We should be realistic about the capacity for the UK to project military power across the globe and make greater efforts to lead by example rather than through force and coercion. The best way of achieving this would be through making a clear statement of intent through non-renewal of Trident and a redefinition of our defence and security policy towards new and emerging threats, including the need to address development issues which span national borders.

Nick Brown is Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne East and the former chief whip

Photograph: Getty Images

Nick Brown is the former chief whip of the Labour Party.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.