Which London boroughs have the best gender balance in their blue plaques?

Ballerina Darcey Bussell unveils a blue plaque to Dame Margot Fonteyn in 2016. Image: Getty.

Wandering the streets London, especially the more artistic boroughs, you’ve probably seen the blue plaques on the walls of some buildings. These honour the notable men and women who have lived or worked in them. But mostly the men.

This week, English Heritage asked the public for help on improving the percentage dedicated to women. At present, this stands at a woeful 14 per cent, even after a two year push to improve it. I asked for a list of the women already commemorated – but the response was to suggest using their app to find specific women.

So I turned to Wikipedia. As that lists the plaques by borough, and I know Citymetric readers love a list with some stats in it, here is a summary of what I found there. If you want to improve the chances of your suggestion making it to a wall, this may help you target your efforts.

Good effort, needs work

First up, the boroughs that seem to be trying.

Kingston-upon-Thames – 40 per cent of plaques dedicated to women

There are only five plaques in total, though, so it’s an area worth punting a suggestion in on. The two women were Enid Blyton and Dame Nellie Melba, but sadly their residencies did not overlap, so there were no lashings of peach desserts.

Enfield – 37 per cent, Merton – 37 per cent

Only four plaques in total in Enfield, so the result here is down to Mary Lamb having to share her plaque with her brother Charles. This seems a little unfair, given he has his own solo plaque over in Islington.

Bromley – 33.3 per cent, Hackney – 28 per cent, Islington – 24 per cent

One of the plaques in Bromley is for two women who lived together, but as we were only counting plaques, that only counted as one. This is not the only time cohabiting ladies appear.

Barnet – 19 per cent, Ealing – 17 per cent, Tower Hamlets – 14 per cent

There are 21 plaques in total for Tower Hamlets, but only three are for women. The site where the first flying bomb landed does get its own plaque, which seems to be stretching the selection criteria quite a long way.

Richmond-upon-Thames – 14 per cent

This borough should look to its neighbour to up its game. More overall, but a lower percentage for women. Virginia Woolf gets half a plaque, sharing with her husband. In fairness, she does have her own plaque over in Camden.

Kensington & Chelsea – 14 per cent

With the early focus of the plaques being on artists, it’s not surprising that K&C has the second highest number with 176 in total. Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst have to share, whist Sylvia gets to go alone. George Eliot makes her first appearance here – one of two women to appear twice in the list without having to share with someone.

City of Westminster – 12 per cent

And here’s Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Eliot’s contemporary, who also gets two solo plaques. This time they are both in the same borough, so the poet makes up 5 per cent of the 38 women listed. With 309 plaques, the most of any part of London, this a borough that is dripping in blue.

Camden - 12 per cent

Here’s Virginia Woolf with a plaque of her own, out of the 169 in the borough. Six women get to share plaques with their husbands. It may be worth a punt, if you can find a building Dante Gabriel Rossetti hasn’t already been in.

Must Try Harder

After the bulge or the arts crowds, we’re back into the boroughs where the number of plaques is in the tens, if that. Any of the following would be a good place to suggest someone.

Haringey – 10 per cent, Lewisham – 9per cent

Haringey has just one woman. But it did pop one on Alexandra Palace for being where the BBC started television in the UK.

Lambeth – 8 per cent

Two of Lambeth’s are for organisations, and two are for women. One of the women was Violette Szabo, the Special Operations Executive agent commemorated in the film ‘Carve Her Name’ and whose bust features on the SOE memorial close to Lambeth Palace.

Southwark 6 per cent, Hammersmith & Fulham 5 per cent, Wandsworth 4 per cent

Wandsworth has 27 plaques, only one of which is for a woman. And it’s that George Eliot again.


Not Even Trying

The following boroughs have no women featured on their blue plaques at all. None. Nada. In some cases, they have very few plaques, so a good pitch here could send them to the top of the leader board.

Barking & Dagenham

Given the role the Dagenham machinists – and their sisters up in Liverpool – had in the push for the Equal Pay Act of 1974, it’s startling to see the lone plaque is to Bobby Moore. The plant the women worked in is being demolished so it may be too late to mark it in the way other places have marked a historic moment.

Greenwich

Despite the borough’s history as a locus of power and scientific thinking, not a single woman of note has been born, died or lived in Greenwich. Not one. The GPO film unit gets a plaque though.

Newham

Two plaques, but none for women. An obvious choice would be Joan Littlewood, who lived and worked in the Theatre Royal Stratford East. Due to the rule about waiting 20 years after someone’s death to nominate them, this will have to wait until 2022 to be considered. 

Havering

Contains one blue plaque. To an anti-tank weapon.

Bexley, Brent, Croydon, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Redbridge, Sutton, Waltham Forest.

I. Can’t. Even.

If you’d like to nominate a woman for a blue plaque, there are some criteria. Which things like bombs and Ally Pally did not meet, but whatever.

Just 6 per cent of the plaques dedicated to scientists are for women at present, so that could be an area to focus on. Click here to get started.

Moira Paul helps run @CarveHerName, a project to write women back into history one day at a time.

 
 
 
 

The IPPC report on the melting ice caps makes for terrifying reading

A Greeland iceberg, 2007. Image: Getty.

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the UN body responsible for communicating the science of climate breakdown – released its long-awaited Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

Based on almost 7,000 peer-reviewed research articles, the report is a cutting-edge crash course in how human-caused climate breakdown is changing our ice and oceans and what it means for humanity and the living planet. In a nutshell, the news isn’t good.

Cryosphere in decline

Most of us rarely come into contact with the cryosphere, but it is a critical part of our climate system. The term refers to the frozen parts of our planet – the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, the icebergs that break off and drift in the oceans, the glaciers on our high mountain ranges, our winter snow, the ice on lakes and the polar oceans, and the frozen ground in much of the Arctic landscape called permafrost.

The cryosphere is shrinking. Snow cover is reducing, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and permafrost is thawing. We’ve known this for most of my 25-year career, but the report highlights that melting is accelerating, with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity and marine and high mountain ecosystems.

At the moment, we’re on track to lose more than half of all the permafrost by the end of the century. Thousands of roads and buildings sit on this frozen soil – and their foundations are slowly transitioning to mud. Permafrost also stores almost twice the amount of carbon as is present in the atmosphere. While increased plant growth may be able to offset some of the release of carbon from newly thawed soils, much will be released to the atmosphere, significantly accelerating the pace of global heating.

Sea ice is declining rapidly, and an ice-free Arctic ocean will become a regular summer occurrence as things stand. Indigenous peoples who live in the Arctic are already having to change how they hunt and travel, and some coastal communities are already planning for relocation. Populations of seals, walruses, polar bears, whales and other mammals and sea birds who depend on the ice may crash if sea ice is regularly absent. And as water in its bright-white solid form is much more effective at reflecting heat from the sun, its rapid loss is also accelerating global heating.

Glaciers are also melting. If emissions continue on their current trajectory, smaller glaciers will shrink by more than 80 per cent by the end of the century. This retreat will place increasing strain on the hundreds of millions of people globally who rely on glaciers for water, agriculture, and power. Dangerous landslides, avalanches, rockfalls and floods will become increasingly normal in mountain areas.


Rising oceans, rising problems

All this melting ice means that sea levels are rising. While seas rose globally by around 15cm during the 20th century, they’re now rising more than twice as fast –- and this rate is accelerating.

Thanks to research from myself and others, we now better understand how Antarctica and Greenland’s ice sheets interact with the oceans. As a result, the latest report has upgraded its long-term estimates for how much sea level is expected to rise. Uncertainties still remain, but we’re headed for a rise of between 60 and 110cm by 2100.

Of course, sea level isn’t static. Intense rainfall and cyclones – themselves exacerbated by climate breakdown – can cause water to surge metres above the normal level. The IPCC’s report is very clear: these extreme storm surges we used to expect once per century will now be expected every year by mid-century. In addition to rapidly curbing emissions, we must invest millions to protect at-risk coastal and low-lying areas from flooding and loss of life.

Ocean ecosystems

Up to now, the ocean has taken up more than 90 per cent of the excess heat in the global climate system. Warming to date has already reduced the mixing between water layers and, as a consequence, has reduced the supply of oxygen and nutrients for marine life. By 2100 the ocean will take up five to seven times more heat than it has done in the past 50 years if we don’t change our emissions trajectory. Marine heatwaves are also projected to be more intense, last longer and occur 50 times more often. To top it off, the ocean is becoming more acidic as it continues to absorb a proportion of the carbon dioxide we emit.

Collectively, these pressures place marine life across the globe under unprecedented threat. Some species may move to new waters, but others less able to adapt will decline or even die out. This could cause major problems for communities that depend on local seafood. As it stands, coral reefs – beautiful ecosystems that support thousands of species – will be nearly totally wiped out by the end of the century.

Between the lines

While the document makes some striking statements, it is actually relatively conservative with its conclusions – perhaps because it had to be approved by the 195 nations that ratify the IPCC’s reports. Right now, I would expect that sea level rise and ice melt will occur faster than the report predicts. Ten years ago, I might have said the opposite. But the latest science is painting an increasingly grave picture for the future of our oceans and cryosphere – particularly if we carry on with “business as usual”.

The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of heating is especially important for the icy poles, which warm much faster than the global average. At 1.5°C of warming, the probability of an ice-free September in the Arctic ocean is one in 100. But at 2°C, we’d expect to see this happening about one-third of the time. Rising sea levels, ocean warming and acidification, melting glaciers, and permafrost also will also happen faster – and with it, the risks to humanity and the living planet increase. It’s up to us and the leaders we choose to stem the rising tide of climate and ecological breakdown.

Mark Brandon, Professor of Polar Oceanography, The Open University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.