G20: Hearts or Spades? The warnings pile up Negative responses 'An Ecological Munich' No Retreat from Globalisation The macabre climate dance ... Twin Meltdowns The Third Meltdown 'Anthropogenics' Three crises in one Hearts are Trumps Spades are Trumps Hearts or Spades? Obama's Dilemma The "instruments" of the Global Economy Neoliberal 'Citizenship' WEF_Davos

Planning for a warmer future? Hilary Benn's 'UK Climate Projections 2009 report' [1] might have marked a water-shed in the UK's response to climate change, but there are too many countervailing indicators alongside it, the most obvious of which is the argument - made by E.on's Paul Golby [2], and economist Jeffrey Sachs [3] - that carbon capture and storage is the silver bullet which will allow 'filthy' coal to go on being used. As The Observer's editorial puts it: The key here lies with the development of ways to generate energy cleanly ... That point was stressed by E.On chief Paul Golby (who) argued that carbon capture and storage schemes ... may prove to be the most important of all forms of clean energy generation ... Coal is a filthy fuel. But the world needs to balance economic vitality and environmental security ... [OBS1] However, The Guardian's report on Ed Miliband's plan for CCS to be fitted to existing coal-fired power stations included the following gem: Drax is the UK's newest and biggest coal-fired station ... (and) ... is technically able to continue to operate into the 2030s. But since it is 40 miles from the coast, transporting captured carbon for storage in the North Sea would be particularly difficult ...  [GDN] Meanwhile, Brown is concerned about the rising price of oil and is calling for an "emergency plan" to "tackle the rising cost of crude" which suggests that market forces should, in this instance, be suspended!  [4] Does he agree with the Chancellor that "We must end our oil dependency"?   [5] Madeleine Bunting gets to the heart of the matter: The priority of the government is getting the economy back on track – getting everyone back in the shopping malls, spending and piling up the debt. There seems no other model for economic growth on offer from Westminster ...    [OBS2]

Point 4 of the G20 statement underlines the centrality of growth to the global economy.  [3]

Point 22 reafirms the mantra that global free trade has promoted 'rising prosperity' and goes on to attack 'growing protectionist pressures and a withdrawal of trade credit', while Point 23 stresses the need to complete the Doha Round.   [9]   [22]

Rational choice theory and the economics of Pareto efficiency are assured of their supremacy over and above social cohesion and 'Gaia'.

Towards the end of the statement there is a nod in the direction of the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit:

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure ...

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.   [25]

Not if such commitments come into conflict with neoliberal dogma!

The warnings pile up:

Carbon targets 'dangerously optimistic'

A leading UK climate scientist yesterday warned MPs that the government's climate change policies are "dangerously optimistic".

Professor Kevin Anderson, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the government's planned carbon cuts – if followed internationally – would have a "50-50 chance" of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2C. This is the threshold that the EU defines as leading to dangerous climate change.

Anderson also said that the two government departments most directly involved with climate change policy were like "small dogs yapping at the heels" of more powerful departments, such as that run by the business secretary, Lord Mandelson. He said that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), run by Ed Miliband, should be given more power.   GDN

Climate change fight 'can't wait'

"We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time ... " BBC (!)

Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year

"The world is at a crossroads. We can no longer afford to ignore the human impact of climate change. This is a call to the negotiators to come to the most ambitious agreement ever negotiated or to continue to accept mass starvartion, mass sickness and mass migration on an ever growing scale," said Kofi Annan, who launched the (Global Humanitarian Forum) report today in London.   GDN

"More than 50% reductions needed by 2050 "

The study concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by more than 50 percent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels, if the risk of exceeding 2°C is to be limited to 25 percent.  PI

"Arctic CO2 levels growing at an 'unprecedented rate'"

Levels of the gas at the Zeppelin research station on Svalbard, northern Norway, last week peaked at over 397 parts per million (ppm), an increase of more than 2.5ppm on 2008. They have since begun to reduce and today stand at 393.7ppm. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were around 280ppm ...   GDN

"World will not meet 2C warming target"

Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints ...   GDN   EL

"Meltdown"

What is certain is that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth. While the average global temperature has risen by less than 1 °C over the past three decades, there has been warming over much of the Arctic Ocean of around 3 °C. In some areas where the ice has been lost, temperatures have risen by 5 °C.  NS

"Britain set to become most populous country in EU"

Soaring population will force millions to flee water shortages in search of refuge - and, according to new figures, Britain will be one of the world's 'lifeboats'. On the eve of a major population conference, Science Editor Robin McKie asks: could the UK cope?  OBS

"Global crisis 'to strike by 2030'"   BBC

"Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible'"   IND

"Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs"   GDN

"Carbon cuts 'only give 50/50 chance of saving planet'" IND

"West blamed for rapid increase in China's CO2"   GDN

"Why scientists say we should expect the worst"   GDN

"For the planet it's geoengineering or bust"

The New Scientist's editorial is so concerned about the world's failure to cut CO2 emissions that it advocates "geoengineering" solutions, such as deflecting the sun's heat, ocean fertilisation, cloud seeding and the usual suspects such as carbon capture and storage.

We're not told how many CO2s would be emitted in setting up such huge projects.

More alarming is the prospect of moving 'at risk populations' to cooler, wetter, parts of the globe where - presumably - there's no host population to object to migration on such an epic scale.

'Safe' climate means 'no to coal'

Hacking the planet

The challenge facing the world's biggest polluters

Sea levels rising twice as fast as predicted

Negative responses ... come in two main forms: denial, and pretence.

Denial is understandable. Cognitive dissonance = "I don't want to believe it's true, therefore it can't be."

Imagine being a wealthy inhabitant of Roman Londinium, circa 350 AD, and being told the Romans will be gone in sixty years, and their lifestyle will vanish with them.

Pretension is worse.

Most corporate advertisers have caught on to the need to be seen to be "doing something about it".

Shell's full-page ads - such as the one page 21 on New Scientist (28 February 2009) - demonstrates the deceit involved.

Shell claims to be investing in biofuels, wind power, and solar cells, which turns out not to be true.

The reality is the opposite: an unreconstructed addiction to fossil fuels.   [416]

By the same token, Sky's vans carry the claim that the company is "carbon neutral", which presumably means News Corporation is now Greenpeace-friendly.

Then there's political pretension, which demands a major article in itself.

On 12 January 2009, The Guardian warned that the low carbon buildings programme is to close in June, and has in any case been the victim of under-funding.     GDN

Ed Miliband, New Labour's token green, 'told the Guardian a "popular mobilisation" was needed to help politicians push through an agreement to limit carbon emissions in the face of concerns about the economy'.    GDN   &   GDN

He is also minister in a government that regularly uses it's 'police state' powers - such as R.I.P.A. - to harrass climate protesters, thus compounding cynicism about its actual committment to lowering CO2 emissions.

GDN   &   GDN   &   GDN

You'll have noticed that Brown does not appeal for "people power" to help him force through unpopular projects like bailing out incompetent bankers.

Finally, the government's support for aviation - and especially the Heathrow expansion - demonstrates a lack of concern about climate change which borders on the sociopathic:

Ruth Kelly     Jim Fitzpatrick     Third runway rebels

Despite clear evidence of the damage which aviation does to the environment, ministers have the effrontery to claim that vehicles, not aircraft, are the problem!

In an article entitled 'Green Sky Thinking' (24 February 2007) New Scientist demolished this line of argument:

"Around 85,000 commercial flights take off each day, and this number is predicted to double by 2050.

"[There is] a widening disparity between the air industry's growth - over 5 per cent annually - and the projected improvement in jetlines fuel efficiency, which is nearer 2 per cent each year.

"... If the industry wants to grow but grow green, it will have to make ... little short of a design revolution.

" ... A single flight across the Atlantic can guzzle about 60,000 litres - more fuel than an average motorist uses in 50 years of driving - generating around 140 tonnes of carbon dioxide, along with 750 kilograms of [Nitrogen Oxides Emissions].

" ... The net result ... is that pollution from high-flying jets is up to four times as damaging ... as the same amount released from chimneys and exhaust pipes at ground level ... "     Aviation

When evidence battles with belief

Why Isn’t the Brain Green?

'An Ecological Munich'

Nearly five years ago James Lovelock warned that we are "at an ecological Munich ... we are at war with the Earth itself" - and five years on we are effectively no further forward.     BBC

John Donne's view of humanity has been overturned - we are now encouraged to think, pace Ayn Rand - that we are each sovereign islands, responsible only to ourselves.

We are not.   [MICD]

The funeral bell, as the poet put it, "tolls for thee".

Gaia hypothesis

James Lovelock

Why Isn’t the Brain Green?

The upcoming extraction of gas and oil from the Arctic - [GTtH] - the conflict in Peru between government forces and the Awajun and Wambis Indians - [GDN] - and the ecologocal impact of Jinsha River dams in China - [BBC] - and the revival of a carbon capture project in Illinois - [NYT] - all confirm the dire ecological impact of growth-driven projects around the world, in pursuit of Gordon Brown's expectation that ...

"In the next 20 years the world economy will double in its size and wealth and we have a great opportunity to win new business, new jobs and prosperity for Britain."   [GDN].

In this context, it is perhaps of small wonder that the prequel to the Copenhagen talks are going so badly:

In one corner sit the rich countries: made wealthy by development fuelled by the burning of coal, oil and gas. And in the other corner sit the poorer nations, many of them eager to follow the same track ...

For all the talk of economic opportunities of the green economy, bringing down greenhouse gas emissions on the scale required is likely to prove very expensive, especially in the near-term.

And for all the talk of international cooperation, nations are determined to protect their own self-interest.

And so the macabre climate dance continues: the developed world still wants to take on some kind of targets, while the poorer nations point out that richer countries have failed to honour past pledges, both on emission cuts and to hand over money to help them ...

Guardian 12 June 2009

US eases pressure on China over climate change targets

The Global financial meltdown and melting of the polar ice caps both emphatically teach the same lesson: if there is one thing we cannot afford, it is unbrildled profiteering.   A.C.Grayling

Professor Chris Field warned that ...

... warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted ... a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires. The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere ...    BBC NEWS

Paul Mason warns that the growth model is over; and George Monbiot spells out the scale of the climate problem: GDN.

Kick-starting the 'green' economy is part of what's needed - 'Green New Deal' - but Michael S. Northcott digs deeper, exposing the 'mechanistic modelling of human behaviour' which is the bedrock of the current neoliberal dystopia.   [AMC]

The dilemma posed to those participating in the upcoming Copenhagen summit on climate change is alluded to in Nicholas Stern's paper in New Scientist calling for a 'green industrial revolution'.

No argument with that, but he pins his hopes on carbon trading, a corporate con which keeps the world firmly within the neoliberal growth model. Worse, it does so in a context of first world countries 'delegating' emissions reductions to poorer nations.   Scrap carbon trading

Carbon cuts 'only give 50/50 chance of saving planet'

Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme? Part 1

'CO2 reduction treaties useless'

'We have only four years left'

'No such thing as society'

Professor Michael S. Northcott condemns what he calls the "mechanistic modelling" of human behaviour by neoliberalism:

The modern moral climate is then a construct of three assumptions: that the human moral agent is an autonomous reasoning sovereign, that human economic exchange is a realm of contractual mediation between autonomous agents, and that the social contract is relationally independent of the cause—effect mechanism of the cosmos.    AMC

Thus neoliberalism is fully committed to the notion that human beings should be autonomous individuals with only - and largely fleeting - contractual relationships with others, and that the planet - like other people - is also there to be 'objectified', and exploited for personal - and short-term - satisfaction.

This is rational choice theory in action, currently promoted by Governmentality.

However, on examination it transpires that rationalism takes a back seat to darker forces.

As Mark Buchanan explains in New Scientist. It may also play a part in Family Breakdown.

Money switches many of us into Martin Bubers' "Ich-es" relationship with other people.

It's also the negation of Gaia, since 'wants' trump 'needs'.

A key facet of this extreme manifestation of Cartesian dualism is the Josef Fritzl school of ethics:

"I'll do exactly as I please, and if someone else gets hurt, that's tough."

The resistance to undertaking the measures needed to massively reduce CO2 emissions can only be understood when this particular, er, 'philosophy' is factored into consideration.

This is also a world-view obsessed with the nostrum that there is a technical fix for every problem, be it climate change, peak oil, or species extinction.

Whatever it is, the corporate-political spin machine will assure us - without a shred of supporting evidence - that they are 'on the case'.

This is a further demonstration of neoliberalism's ethical desert, since the assumption behind the 'techo-fix' frame of reference is that we can carry on as before with the same exploitative greed-driven agenda.

Examined from this point of view, Nicholas Stern's otherwise commendable call for much greater efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are vitiated by his belief that these can be achieved by carbon trading, and will allow growth to continue. [GIR]

That the 'mechanistic modelling of human behaviour' is now pandemic is confirmed by reports such as these:

Family Breakdown

A&E patients 'left in agony'

Posturing and laughter as victims rot

The man who lost £28bn of RBS cash

Children found next to dead mothers

Israeli comedy show satirises Gaza violence

'Liquid cosh' treatment kills dementia patients

Patient with Down's syndrome starves in hospital

Massacre of a family seeking sanctuary

'Hawking the Technofix'

Bangladesh is set to disappear ...

'Too many lives?'

The new 'ethics' also informs Gordon Brown's belief that the Gaza conflict "has cost too many lives". [OBS]

Bob Koehler examines this latest notion in OpEdNews.

The idea that conflicts might have "the right number of lives" - such as 'x' citizens of Gaza for every Israeli killed by Hamas rockets - sounds familiar.

Yes, it's from the Old Testament, and it's called "an eye for an eye", though in it's current incarnation that would be - loosely - around "100 eyes for an eye", since your ethnic group's eyes are worth a hundredth of my ethnic group's eyes.

This world-view was very popular in Germany until May 1945, but has since been revived in the Middle East.

Professor Niels Röling asks the basic question: can we adapt to the ecological imperative?

Is ever-increasing wealth the only viable measure of progress?

Is it possible to have global governance that protects our future?

Can individuals really be rational and modify behaviours accordingly?

Can we abandon "methodological individualism"?

... anthropogenics would be an "adaptive" science, in that it would focus on a more effective and less destructive coupling of humans and their environment, while its study of behavioural and social dynamics would be concerned with drivers such as an awareness of interdependence in resource use, rather than individual greed ...

At the heart of anthropogenics, then, would be a synthesis of what we know about our ability to sacrifice private for public good, to take less and give more, and of research into game theory, social psychology, anthropology and evolutionary economics.

It will challenge the key western assumption that human behaviour is necessarily selfish.

A close understanding of how institutions determine individual behaviour might even curb the enthusiasm for "methodological individualism", the tendency to explain collective things such as the marketplace as a necessary outcome of individual choices.

Are we trappped in "game theory's prisoner's dilemma"?

The underlying basis of anthropogenics is still self-interest - but of a collective rather than individual kind.

Serving a collective self-interest is not as outlandish as our self-image makes us believe.

Admittedly, game theory's prisoner's dilemma scenario appears to show we often opt for short-term, individual gain, even if everyone would be better off long-term by cooperating.

But much research challenges such a simplistic reading. Take the famous 1981 paper The Evolution of Cooperation by political scientist Robert Axelrod and evolutionary biologist William Hamilton, in which they showed there was plenty of scope for cooperation under a variety of conditions.

Elinor Ostrom at Indiana University, Bloomington, and others showed that human societies can create institutions to manage collectively competing claims on common resources.

Underlying such institutions is an acute awareness that individuals can only reach their particular goals if others can reach theirs.

The centrality of interdependence is a good example of why anthropogenics would be an adaptive science: ecological imperatives inform the behavioural outcomes and vice versa.

The question is whether agreements like these can also be made in more complex societies, and in a world in which a handful of countries are disproportionately responsible for climate change ...

Niels Röling is an emeritus professor of communication and innovation studies at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Among his interests are policies and strategies for fostering innovation in subsistence farming.

New Scientist 14 January 2009 | Magazine issue 2691 | Pages 40-41

... a good way to imagine the current near-collapse must also relate the financial hurricane of 2007-08 to other, concurrent troubles: in democracy and sustainability, for example.

This brief article considers this theme by employing another metaphor: the "suit of cards".

The metaphor started life in a set of scenarios for the future of the planet in SustainAbility's report Raising Our Game (2007). The first three depict outcomes in which society and the environment either win or lose:

• diamonds, which we describe as "a domino-effect world, in which, instead of Adam Smith's invisible hand, our invisible elbows knock over a series of economic, social and environmental dominoes"



• clubs, where we foresee "a world [where] elites learn how to use environmental sustainability as an excuse for denying the poor access to their fair share of natural resources"



• spades, where "(democratic) societies open out higher living standards to growing populations" but where "ecosystems are progressively undermined, with most governments unwilling to take the political risks of asking voters to make sacrifices in favour of the common good"



• hearts, a world in which "demography, politics, economics and sustainability gel. It is the future that the Brundtland commission pointed us towards way back in 1987".

This framework leads us to ask questions of democracy itself:

• can it drive the transition towards more sustainable patterns of production and consumption?



• are growing democracy vs sustainability tensions in prospect?



• can the peoples of the world (soon to be 9-10 billion) vote their way to a sustainable future?



• are the time-scales of democratically elected governments appropriate for delivering sustainable development?

John Elkington & Mark Lee

openDemocracy    Beyond the triple crisis

Back to G20 - Clause 27

Why Isn’t the Brain Green?

Offshore wind farms could meet a quarter of the UK's electricity needs

Levy on international air travel

Brown's electric dream for Britain

Climate report delivers a jolt to ministers

Green response to the economic crisis

A green economy could be ours

Cars or Wind Turbines?

No time for tax cuts

More 'Hearts are Trumps' Links

The UK's seas could provide enough extra wind energy to power the equivalent of 19m homes, according to an assessment by the government.

The government's strategic environmental assessment (Sea) confirmed projections that an extra 25GW of electricity generation capacity could be accommodated in UK waters.

This would be in addition to the 8GW of wind power already built or planned offshore, bringing the potential total electricity capacity of offshore wind to 33GW – enough to power every household in the UK.

According to the government, offshore wind has the potential to meet more than a quarter of the UK's electricity needs, provide the UK with up to 70,000 new jobs and generate £8bn a year in revenue ...

Guardian 25 July 2009

Britain and other rich countries will be asked to accept a compulsory levy on international flight tickets and shipping fuel to raise billions of dollars to help the world's poorest countries adapt to combat climate change.

The suggestions come at the start of the second week in the latest round of UN climate talks in Bonn, where 192 countries are starting to negotiate a global agreement to limit and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of funding for adaptation is critical to success but the hardest to agree.

The aviation levy, which is expected to increase the price of long-haul fares by less than 1%, would raise $10bn (£6.25bn) a year, it is said.

It has been proposed by the world's 50 least developed countries. It could be matched by a compulsory surcharge on all international shipping fuel, said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment and energy minister who will host the final UN climate summit in December.

"People are beginning to understand that innovative ideas could generate a lot of money. The Danish shipping industry, which is one of the world's largest, has said a that truly global system would work well. Denmark would endorse it," said Hedegaard.

In Bonn last week, a separate Mexican proposal to raise billions of dollars was gaining ground. The idea, known as the "green fund" plan, would oblige all countries to pay amounts according to a formula reflecting the size of their economy, their greenhouse gas emissions and the country's population. That could ensure that rich countries, which have the longest history of using of fossil fuels, pay the most to the fund ...

Guardian 080609

Brown's electric dream for Britain

Gordon Brown has promised an environmentally friendly Budget later this month to kick start a "green recovery" – including the mass introduction of electric cars on Britain's roads ... the Prime Minister trailed measures to make Britain "a world leader" in producing and exporting electric cars, hybrid petrol-electric vehicles and lighter cars using less petrol.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, will announce in his Budget that trials for electric cars in two or three cities will begin next year. Councils will be invited to bid to become Britain's first "green cities".

The Government will open talks with power companies to ensure the vehicles can have their batteries recharged at a national network of power points at the roadside.

Mr Darling will also set a target of creating 400,000 jobs in "green industries" over the next five years ...

The Independent 08 April 2009

Electric car subsidies unveiled

G20: Clause 27

Climate report delivers a jolt to ministers

Four key points from the Turner Committee report on climate change require government policy change.

First, he rightly says that emissions from international aviation and shipping must be sharply reduced and brought within the Government's carbon reduction targets. At present they're exempt, even though emissions from international flights more than doubled to 40 million tonnes in 2006.

He proposes that no new coal-fired power stations should be licensed unless it can be retro-fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment by 2020. Yet a reply to a parliamentary question of mine this month said starkly that the Government will not commit "to require new coal plants to be fitted with CCS or to set a date by which this should be required". Turner is right that new coal stations such as Kingsnorth, Blyth and at least half a dozen others should be halted until a timetabled CCS commitment is in place.

Third, Turner is sceptical of buying carbon credits abroad (such as by building a clean-energy power plant in China) to offset against carbon targets in the UK. The Government is currently planning to allow as much as 30 per cent of the overall UK target to be obtained from abroad by this means. Turner thinks this should be cut back in the current carbon budget to less than 10 per cent, or preferably zero, and he's right.

Lastly, the Government needs Turner's big jolt to kick-start a massive programme in renewable sources of energy, where Britain's record hitherto has been pathetic. The big EU countries all generate 10-25 per cent of their electricity from renewables, and Scandinavia 35-50 per cent.

The UK performance, with the best renewables capacity in Europe from wind and wave and tidal power, is just 4 per cent. That has got to change – fast.

Michael Meacher MP

The Independent 03 December 2008    Whistling in the Wind

Green response to the economic crisis

As convener of the group that coined the term Green New Deal, I would like to contest Adair Turner's view that we should not overstate its job generating potential (Climate change watchdog backs expansion of Heathrow, November 27).

The numbers depend on the amount of investment put into turning Britain into a low-carbon economy.

As Alistair Darling's efforts to bribe us back to declining shopping malls are seen to fail, more attention will shift to President-elect Obama's promised emphasis on funding millions of new "green collar" jobs and the need for the UK to allocate adequate funds to do likewise.

Many still appear to think that the present crisis will be a temporary downturn.

But it took a quarter-century for Wall Street to return to the levels of 1929 after the Great Crash, and the Japanese economic crisis has seen falling house prices for nearly two decades.

The only conclusion we can draw from these appalling events is that we will need a massive reflation of the economy that generates huge job and business opportunities, while saving money by dramatically lessening carbon use.

David Miliband and Hilary Benn reportedly urged such an approach for the pre-budget report in cabinet, but were rebuffed.

As the economic slump drags on, this is no time for Adair Turner's cautious approach to the Green New Deal.

Colin Hines

Convenor, Green New Deal Group

Guardian 28 November 2008    The Green New Deal is our hope for jobs

A green economy could be ours

The threat of climate change calls for a broader interpretation of public interest in the context of the massive public investment that has been made into the ailing banks. The "Green New Deal" being proposed by the New Economics Foundation and the Guardian's Larry Elliott, among others, calls for massive public spending to bring about the urgently needed transition to a low-carbon economy. The public could shortly be the majority owner of a financial institution that could play a key role in the Green New Deal if the government was willing to spend a fraction of the amount of political will that it took to bail out the banks in the first place. The widely touted interests of the tax-payer as shareholder would be much better served by creating a more climate-secure future than by the short-term inflation of RBS's profit margins.

Guardian 21 November 2008

Cars or Wind Turbines?

With the recent financial turmoil, many companies and industries are finding themselves in deteriorating financial straits.

Yesterday the CEOs of the 'Big Three' auto makers testified before Congress on why they should be the latest recipients of taxpayer funds, specifically a $25 billion injection from the government to keep their businesses afloat.

At the same time, renewable energy infrastructure buildout is facing similar problems. 66 out of 262 approved wind farms have either been outright canceled or postponed.

Some tough choices will likely have to be made. It has been our historical political trajectory to put out immediate fires and neglect smoke on the horizon. But at what point, if ever, is there an 'a-ha' (or 'uh-oh') moment, when we collectively realize we don't have the resources to continue ALL businesses. Some entire industries can, should and will fail.

The Oil Drum

No time for tax cuts

There is a massive backlog of works that need to be undertaken which can be put into progress almost immediately, and which would have exactly the right effect for fiscal stimulus purposes in the short term.

It so happens they would also have enormous short-term benefit for the UK population, and for our long-term carbon efficiency. Take for example the insulation of vast numbers of UK properties which are present completely thermally inefficient. Take for example fitting double glazing to large numbers of properties which do not have it.

This is work for which people can be trained to do in a very short period of time. That tackles an unemployment issue.

We know that there is going to be unemployment in the building sector of enormous degree. People could be redeployed on this activity. We know that we need this form of thermal efficiency. We know people are living in substandard properties because this activity has not been done too many years.

The government now needs to get on with this sort of programme.

We do not need a third runway or new roads to achieve a fiscal stimulus.

We need cavity wall insulation and loft insulation ... The right choice is the green choice on this occasion, and it so happens that can be delivered, fast.

Tax Research UK 11 November 2008

UK needs 'Green New Deal'

Global Justice - The Big Picture

Brundtland commission

Green routes to growth

UN announces green 'New Deal' plan to rescue world economies

Don't kill the planet

Opting for spades?

Prioritise people and environment

Raising Our Game: Can We Sustain Globalization?

Eco Log

Back to 'Hearts'

Haulage lobby plans to force 'megatrucks' on to Britain's road

Shell's subtle switch from renewables

Most expensive train fares in Europe

Third runway vote passed

Loans to jump-start car sales

Heathrow 1 - 0 Railways

Shell's Game

The consequences of prudence

Emergency rescue plan for British motor industry

'It will take time, but we'll recover'

Poverty pledge 'crowded out'

Climate change watchdog backs expansion of Heathrow

The green revolution postponed

Coal's return raises pollution threat

VAT cuts create jobs in China

Europe joins contest for Arctic's resources

More 'Spades are Trumps' Links

The powerful European road lobby plans to force Britain and other countries to accept some of the world's biggest trucks on the grounds that they will reduce traffic congestion and be less polluting.

The "megatrucks" would be more than 80ft (25.2m) long and weigh 60 tonnes, nearly a third longer and heavier than any vehicle allowed on British roads at present. The trucks would probably tow several trailers and effectively be "road trains".

Details are contained in a new research paper for the European commission (EC), which is expected to lead to proposals for a binding European directive in 2010.

Megatrucks ... have as many as 10 axles and weigh more than a Boeing 737 ...

The European road lobby, led by haulage companies in the Netherlands, is strongly pressing for them to be introduced because studies show they are 15-30% cheaper to run than normal HGV trucks per unit of freight.

The lobby is eager to claw back cargo that has been diverted to railways and argues that megatrucks are more environmentally friendly than rail ...

Guardian 23 June 2009

Shell's spending on renewables – except biofuel – appears to have fallen from $200m a year to zero over the past nine years.

Yesterday, Shell announced that it has stopped investing in conventional renewables: wind, solar and hydro. It will concentrate instead on developing second-generation biofuels. There are a number of possible reasons for this shift:

• Shell's portfolio was spread too thinly

• Carbon prices, which reflect the carbon caps imposed by governments, are extremely low. Without some major policy shifts, they are likely to stay that way, which means that renewables are an unattractive investment

• The prospect of a liquid fuels-crunch caused by declining oil reserves means that Shell will get better returns for its money by investing in tar sands and biofuels than by investing in electricity supply

• Greenwash isn't working any more. Some of us suspected that the primary purpose of Shell's investment in renewables was public relations. Though he did not express himself clearly on this point, van der Veer appeared to concede in our interview that some of the company's advertising had not been honest ...

... This week I received a leaked extract of van der Veer's latest newsletter to his staff. It says:

Finally, let me update you on our renewable energy activities. As you know, our strategy is to investigate a range of alternative energy and CO2 technologies. We spent about $1.7bn on them in the last five years. The one that is closest to our core business is sustainable biofuels. That's where we'll focus in 2009 and 2010.

George Monbiot 19 March 2009

Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels

Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today. It plans to invest more in biofuels which environmental groups blame for driving up food prices and deforestation.

Executives at its annual strategy presentation said Shell, already the world's largest buyer and blender of crop-based biofuels, would also invest an unspecified amount in developing a new generat­ion of biofuels which do not use food-based crops and are less harmful to the environment.

The company said it would concentrate on developing other cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.

It hoped to use CCS to reduce emissions from Shell's controversial and energy-intensive oil sands projects in northern Canada ...

Guardian 17 March 2009

Obama's tar sand trap

Athabasca Tar Sands

Average season tickets and day returns in the UK cost almost twice as much as the next most expensive country, according to a comprehensive study by the rail watchdog Passenger Focus ...

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said: "This report shows British passengers are the most ripped off in Europe. Every year ministers are forcing above-inflation price hikes on passengers who are being forced to stand on increasingly overcrowded trains.

"There should be an immediate fare freeze, paid for by taking money from the road widening budget." ...

Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: "Rail passengers in Britain are the victims of a legalised scam that imposes inflation-busting fares increases year on year to feed the massive profits of private train operators." ...

Telegraph 19 February 2009

Passenger Focus

GB rail fares 'more than Europe'

Rail passengers bled dry

Heathrow third runway vote passed

Mr Hoon warned that abandoning the third runway would do "serious damage" to the economy.

He added: "The beneficiaries of the party opposite's policy would be clear: they would be the Dutch, the French and the Germans.

"What their policy will do is give a real boost to continental employment, to continental growth, by exporting British jobs.

"The reality is that by encouraging our European competitors to expand at our expense, the Conservative Party's policy would damage this country economically and would not save a single gram of carbon."

Telegraph 29 January 2009

LORD MANDELSON, the business secretary, will this week offer government loans to help stimulate car sales as part of a multi-billion-pound rescue package for the struggling motor trade.

The “bailout” to be unveiled at a car summit on Wednesday is also expected to include government cash to subsidise car workers’ training, help for the suppliers of car parts and grants for “green” research and development.

The centrepiece is likely to be a loan scheme aimed at boosting the availability of car finance ...

Ministers are understood to have rejected a radical “scrap-page” scheme where owners of old polluting cars would be given tax breaks to trade them in for new cleaner vehicles ...

Sunday Times 25 January 2009

You might think that concern for the climate - and peak oil - would lead to a policy of reducing the use of petrol. Not with Gordon Brown in charge ...

Off-peak train fares highest in Europe

The [Liberal Democrat] party looked at "anytime" single rail tickets across Europe.

It found that in Britain, £10 only takes travellers an average of 26 miles.

In comparison, £10 in Serbia provides 512 miles of rail travel.

The Lib Dems said even with an off-peak return ticket in Britain, £10 only buys 56 miles of travel on the railways, making Britain's off-peak returns more expensive than single tickets in more than half of European countries ...

... Norman Baker MP said:

"Ministers are putting a huge amount of effort into forcing through an environmentally disastrous third runway at Heathrow while ignoring the plight of rail passengers."

Telegraph 19 January 2009

Rail services under threat after passenger growth hits buffers

According to figures seen by the Guardian, the number of rail journeys last year rose by less than 5%, down from 7.8% in 2007 and 6.7% in 2006.

The tail-off in passenger growth follows an even steeper fall in revenue growth in the final two months of last year, with fare income rising by just 4% - prompting fears that some franchise contracts are coming under pressure.

Analysts have warned that some recently awarded contracts need revenue growth closer to double figures to keep pressure off their owners ...

Franchise owners have slashed more than 1,500 jobs recently, with National Express cutting 750 across its business, South West Trains shedding 480 and Go-Ahead's Southeastern losing 300 ...

The cost-cutting is taking place against the backdrop of a gradual elimination of the net government subsidy to franchise owners over the next three years.

The government's subsidy of eight major franchises - including South West Trains, National Express East Coast and Southeastern - totalled £811m last year but that is scheduled to become a state profit of £326m by 2012 ...

Guardian 19 January 2009    Growth: Threat to Humanity

Shell’s Game

I asked Mr van der Veer a simple question - fifteen times ... “What is the value of your annual investments in renewable energy?”. He waffled, changed the subject, admitted that he knew the figure, then flatly refused to reveal it. Nor could he give me a convincing explanation of why he wouldn’t tell me, claiming only that “those figures are misused and people say it is too small” and it “is not the right message to give to the people”.

It strikes me that there is only one likely reason for these evasions: that Shell’s spending on renewables has fallen sharply from the figure it announced in 2000. It’s a fair guess that the current investment would look microscopic by comparison to its spending on the Canadian tar sands, and would make a mockery of its new round of advertising. I challenge Shell - for the 16th time - to prove me wrong ...

Monbiot.com 06 January 2009   Corporate Sociopathy Log

We cannot afford to ignore the interests of savers

The heading over The Indie's main leader referred to the plight of "Britain's beleaguered savers" but went on to deplore "the consequence of this collective prudence" which "is likely to make this downturn even longer and more painful".

To make sure readers understand that the title of the article is deeply ironic, the writer goes on:

If ministers were to attempt to take drastic action to make saving more attractive, for instance by seizing back control of interest rates from the Bank of England and putting them up, it would crucify the wider economy.   [IND]

Ergo the only way out of a crisis caused by debt is to, er, get the banks to lend again!

Jeremy Warner takes up where the leader writer leaves off:

The Government and the Bank of England have tried flooding the system with cash, they've tried cutting interest rates, they've tried the special liquidity scheme, they've forced the banks to recapitalise, and they've tried guaranteeing interbank, small business and export lending, yet still the banking system won't lend in the way and in the quantities it used to.

What more can be done?

The banks are caught between a rock and hard place: the need to "deleverage" whilst at the same time lending more.

Jeremy Warner, running out of options, suggests:

To act as a substitute for the banks in credit provision might further undermine the Government's perceived creditworthiness and could potentially end up bankrupting the entire country.

All the same, the Government has to do something to ease the lending famine, and this may well be the least worst solution.    [JW]

Back to the leader writer, who's conclusion underlines the collective insanity:

We need to get out of this economic hole, but, when that is done, the hard work of building a sustainable economy begins. We will need savers for that task ahead.

No insight into the characteristics of "a sustainable economy" are offered, as the combination of "growth" and "prudence" was always an oxymoron.

Emergency rescue plan for British motor industry

A 'green' opportunity not to be taken?

A financial rescue package for Britain’s motor industry was being put together last night, mirroring efforts in Washington to save America’s three big carmakers from collapse.

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, may offer bridging loans on commercial terms to vehicle and component manufacturers and wider guarantees for loans from banks. ...

The Times 13 December 2008   

Here is the authentic voice of Davos Man: no concerns about climate change, peak oil, or poverty in the third world, impinge upon a radiant optimism:

It will take time, but we'll recover

... if this downturn is an average one we will hit bottom next spring or summer, bounce along with nothing much happening for a year, and then see a solid recovery starting about the middle of 2010. But we won't be back to the peak level of GDP that we were at in the second quarter of this year until well into 2011. Since share market recoveries anticipate economic recoveries by six to nine months that would suggest that shares will not go anywhere until well into next year, maybe not until its end.

Unfortunately no downturn is exactly the same so that timetable sketched here should carry a capital letter health warning. But we can assert with some confidence that something like it is likely to occur and that by 2012 the recovery will be solid and secure.

Hamish McRae 03 December 2008   

West's pledge to tackle global poverty
has been crowded out by our own crisis

... crowding out is already here. The financial crisis has so dominated the political landscape in the past 16 months that it has crowded out almost every other issue.

What, for example, has happened to concern about climate change? It has been pushed on to the back burner as attention switches to the short-term need to create jobs and boost growth, that's what.

And how about the west's great crusade to fight global poverty by finding the money needed to hit the 2015 millennium development goals set by the United Nations?

When all those toxic sub-prime loans were being flogged in 2005, and G7 leaders mistook a pyramid selling scheme for real prosperity, the Gleneagles summit was dominated by giving Africa a helping hand.

This past weekend, there has been a conference in Qatar called to ensure rich countries live up to the promises they made three years ago.

Robert Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, are apparently too busy dealing with the financial crisis to attend.

That's crowding out for you ...

... the lessons of the financial crisis are instructive. Almost every piece of advice rammed down the throats of poor countries by the Washington consensus - privatise, liberalise, de-regulate - is now being turned on its head in the west.

Guardian 01 December 2008

Climate change watchdog backs expansion of Heathrow

The UK could meet its ambitious pledge to slash greenhouse gas pollution even if ministers give the go-ahead to expanding Heathrow airport, the government's leading climate change adviser has signalled.

... when asked about the contentious Heathrow plan, Lord Turner, chairman of the independent Climate Change Committee, told the Guardian that it would be possible for aviation to be expanded while still meeting the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the middle of this century, especially if airlines were able to use biofuels or other low-carbon power sources.

"It's possible for the world to cut greenhouse gases while still not cutting aviation by anything like as much, even increase aviation emissions," he said ...

Guardian 27 November 2008

Heathrow runway decision delayed until 2009

The Big Question

Airline emissions 'far higher than previous estimates'

AirportWatch

Plane Stupid

Proof that we are not taking climate change seriously

We can expand Heathrow and still tackle climate change

The green revolution postponed

A "green new deal" it ain't. More motorways, cheaper fuel, more of the same.

The planet's ecological crisis makes the current financial crisis look like, well, something very small and insignificant indeed.

Had he aimed to shift the UK economy on to a greener track, creating jobs and reflating the economy at the same time, things might be looking more positive.

But he just doesn't seem to get it ...

... investment in "green growth" could theoretically take us in a different direction – but the government has shied away from the challenge.

At the moment renewables are taking a big hit from the credit crunch – with private sector cash drying up, wind, solar and other projects are being postponed or cancelled around the world ...

It's pretty clear now that Britain isn't going to be leading the "green revolution". Let's see if Obama can do any better. I've still got hope.

Guardian 25 November 2008

Coal's return raises pollution threat

Britain is poised to expand its coal mining industry, despite fears that the move will lead to a rise in climate change emissions and harm communities and the environment.

Freedom of information requests and council records show that in the past 18 months 14 companies have applied to dig nearly 60 million tonnes of coal from 58 new or enlarged opencast mines. At least six coal-fired power stations are planned. If all the applications are approved, the fastest expansion of UK coal mining in 40 years could see southern Scotland and Northumberland become two of the most heavily mined regions in Europe.

The demand for new mines is being driven by dramatic increases in the price of coal. This has quadrupled in two years and has risen by 45 per cent since the start of this year. Opencast, or surface, mines are much cheaper than deep mines, but those living nearby can suffer years of pollution. ...

Observer 23 November 2008

Coal Can't Fill World's Burning Appetite

No new coal (it's not rocket science, Gordon)

Hawking the Technofix

VAT cuts create jobs in China:
not a good use of UK government debt

I’ve made my hopes for the Pre-Budget Report pretty clear: infrastructure led job creation, support for those unemployed, help for those with mortgage difficulties, and investment in the green economy.

It looks likely that Alastair Darling will offer VAT cuts: a useless consumer stimulus that will only create jobs in China and which shows he apparently thinks we can consume our way out of a recession created by consumer driven debt.

Compare with the USA where Obama’s team are planning green jobs and infrastructure development.

Brown still has a lot to learn. Maybe it’s too late to think he will.

Tax Research UK 23 November 2008

Europe joins international contest for Arctic's resources

Europe took a step yesterday towards joining the scramble for the Arctic's vast mineral riches that are being opened up by global warming, declaring for the first time that the resources could help stem anxiety about Europe's energy security. In what it said was "a first step towards an EU Arctic policy", a European commission paper spelt out Europe's interests in the Arctic's energy resources, fisheries, new shipping routes, security concerns and environmental perils.

While calling for environmental safeguards in the Arctic, the commission said that "exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbon resources and the opening of new navigation routes can be of benefit". Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the commissioner for external relations, said the aim was to "keep the right balance between the priority goal of preserving the environment and the need for sustainable use of natural resources including hydrocarbons".

Guardian 21 November 2008

More 'Spades are Trumps' Links

Monsanto

Tom Vilsack

Darling to slash VAT and spark Xmas spree

Opting for spades?

UK opposes green aviation target

Climate Denial

G20: Clause 27

General Motors

Trying to Expand the Meaning of ‘Renewable Energy’

'Green' power plants may burn palm oil

Car scrappage & CCS demonstration schemes

Electric car subsidies unveiled

Scrappage scheme

Brown accused over green spending

Scrap It

Obama’s Backing Raises Hopes for Climate Pact

Lithium from Bolivia

Scrap carbon trading

WEF wants $10tn to save the world

Willie Walsh's 'challenging target'

Tories plan 'energy revolution'

Government ... delaying green revolution

Heathrow train plan

EU leaders reach compromise deal on emissions

Offshore wind farm plans in jeopardy

Are carbon offsetters taking us for a ride?

Obama's plans

US car industry bailout

Brown's plan to save rainforests

The definition of renewable energy seems clear cut: The sun continues to shine, so solar energy is renewable. The wind continues to blow, so wind turbines churn out renewable power.

But industries are now pushing to have a growing number of other technologies categorized as renewable — or at least as environmentally advantageous. They include nuclear power plants and the burning of garbage and even the waste from coal mines.

The lure of the renewable label is understandable. Federal tax breaks for renewable energy have been reauthorized, and quotas for renewable energy production have been set in 28 states, accompanied by extensive new grants, loans and other economic advantages. And legislation is moving through both houses of Congress to establish national quotas for renewable energy sources, including the climate bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday.

With billions of dollars at stake, legislators have been besieged by lobbyists eager to share in the wealth ...

NYT 25 May 2009

The operators of Britain's first "biofuel" power plants are considering burning palm oil, which is blamed for causing rainforest destruction in south-east Asia.

At least four new power stations are being planned around the UK to burn vegetable oils with the assurance that they will generate less pollution than burning climate-change-causing fossil fuels. Two that would power more than 50,000 homes, at Portland in Dorset and Newport in South Wales, are considering using palm oil.

... environmentalists say using any palm oil would be unwise because it would put pressure on supplies, even if the supplies which go into the power stations are officially sustainable. Some green groups are also unsure whether the RSPO system for certifying "sustainable" supplies is sufficiently robust.

Most of the 38 million tonnes of palm oil produced globally is used in food and cosmetics. But the need for biofuels to mix with petrol and as "feedstock" for power stations is putting pressure on demand, which is forecast to grow at 6 to 10 per cent a year ...

... Robert Palgrave, a member of the pressure group Biofuelswatch, argued that growing crops for electricity was a less efficient use of resources than using that land for wind turbines: "To produce the amount of palm oil for food, cosmetics and biofuel is an incredible demand and the only way they can get it is through deforestation."

The Independent 11 May 2009

Palm oil and climate change

The guilty secrets of palm oil

The car scrappage scheme, which Alistair Darling announced this afternoon, is likely to raise rather than reduce emissions. This is because the carbon costs of manufacturing new cars – and the materials required to produce them – appear to outweigh the savings from driving more efficient models. But even if you were to ignore the emissions from manufacturing, my estimates suggest that this government subsidy saves carbon dioxide at the rate of around £500 a tonne: a gob-smackingly inefficient use of our money. Darling's package doesn't even contain the basic safeguard of ensuring that the new cars he's encouraging us to buy are economical models: there's nothing to stop you from using this hand-out to trade in a Fiat 500 for a Range Rover.

The car scrappage scheme is not about jobs or the environment: it is not green and it's not a new deal. It's simply another installment in the 50-year history of government subsidies for the motor industry. Darling was quite frank about it: the purpose of the scrappage scheme, he said, is "support for the automotive industry". But in this case it's mostly the automotive industry in other countries that we'll be supporting, as 85% of our new cars come from abroad. This is a stupid and profligate way to spend our diminished funds ...

Darling's announcement of two or perhaps four carbon capture and storage demonstration schemes ... could be seen either as a genuine attempt to find a means of reducing the impact of burning fossil fuels, or as the greenwash required to approve the first new coal plant for many years in the UK (at Kingsnorth in Kent). A demonstration at Kingsnorth would remove only around 1/6th of the plant's CO2 ...

None of the measures announced in the budget explain how the government will meet its ambitious carbon target for 2020. They look too small even to counteract the growth in transport (especially aviation) emissions and the likely return to coal burning, let alone to drive a 34% cut. At the moment this target, while admirable, is just wishful thinking - rather like Mr Darling's projections for the economy.

Guardian 22 April 2009

Government puts carbon capture on fast track

'Clean' coal plants get go-ahead

Cash-back scheme is car crash logic

Climate Change

Kingsnorth

Motorists will be offered subsidies of up to £5,000 to encourage them to buy electric or plug-in hybrid cars under plans announced by the government.

It is part of the government's £250m plan to promote low carbon transport over the next five years.

But ministers do not expect the cars to hit the showrooms until 2011.

Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon said that there was huge potential to reduce emissions, with less than 0.1% of the UK's 26 million cars now electric.

The strategy also includes plans to provide £20m for charging points and other necessary infrastructure ...

Environmental campaigners Friends of the Earth said that financial support for electric cars was a step in the right direction but said investment in public transport was also needed.

"Electric cars are only as green as the electricity they run on - ministers must do far more to boost the UK's flagging renewable energy industry," said the group's transport campaigner Tony Bosworth.

"Low carbon vehicles are certainly part of the future, but more extensive measures are needed to make the necessary cuts in transport emissions. Far more must be done to get people out of their cars by making public transport, cycling and walking more attractive options," he added.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said that the government's announcement lacked detail on the measures needed to make electric cars a mainstream reality.

He said more information was needed on how the higher demand for electricity would be managed and on how a national network of car charging points would be created ...

Liberal Democrat shadow transport secretary, Norman Baker, said the government scheme was a gimmick that would only benefit the few.

"Discounts on electric cars are all very well for those who can afford to buy a new car but it cannot hide the fact that the Government has forced up rail fares and destroyed many local bus services," he said ...

BBC NEWS 16 April 2009

Car firms told to halve emissions (by 2050)

The call for the cut in emissions came from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Transport Forum (ITF) and the FIA Foundation.

"The world's car fleet is expected to triple by 2050 with 80% of this in developing economies," predicted Achim Steiner, United Nations Under-Secretary General and executive director of UNEP.

"We would urge the world's car and component makers to get on board to prove that they too are part of the solution."

Broadly speaking, automotive industry executives say such emission cuts are perfectly feasible, though they would come at a cost ...

BBC NEWS 04 March 2009

Mini points to electric car future

Bolivia holds key to electric car future

Plug-in hybrid boosts electric motoring

A few years ago, Professor Julia King, vice-chancellor of Aston University, was recruited by Gordon Brown to review the market for low-carbon cars. It was an authoritative study, and she didn't mention scrappage once. She did endorse the view that 85 per cent of a car's CO2 emissions take place during its use, with only 10 per cent accounted for by the car's manufacture and 5 per cent in its disposal.

But that does not mean that scrapping every old car is a good idea. Even a 10-year-old Renault Clio or Volkswagen Polo will have plenty of life left in it, and its carbon dioxide emissions will not be so radically awful compared to its newer cousin. The marginal gain in CO2 and other noxious emissions might well not outweigh the additional rape of the earth's resources and the energy expended in the manufacture of a new vehicle ...

Crucially, scrappage schemes usually place no premium on how fuel-efficient and clean the new car will be, against the old car to be scrapped – badly undermining the green credentials of the idea.

The King review sounded a strong warning on this point: "In practice, purchase decisions suggest that consumers take a short-term view when weighing up vehicle purchase costs. Future cost savings from fuel-efficiency are discounted heavily at the time of buying a new car, and consumers report that they would require large financial benefits before switching to a smaller car or a car with a smaller engine."

The £1bn we may spend on scrappage would, in the long term, probably be better directed at green research and development, where the UK lags behind ...

The Independent 14 April 2009

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been accused by a think tank of failing to harness his economic stimulus for the benefit of the environment.

The New Economics Foundation says that among rich nations, the UK has invested the least in clean technology.

It called UK performance pathetic, but the Treasury said the fiscal stimulus could not be looked at in isolation.

It said it expected to drive over £50bn of investment in the low-carbon sector between 2008 and 2011 ...

The analysis by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) criticises the UK for spending just over £100m - 0.0083% of its national wealth (GDP) - on genuinely new and additional measures to benefit the environment.

Andrew Sims, the report's author, said: "This is a fraction of the amount given to RBS staff in bonuses. The prime minister says he is creating green jobs but this is a fantasy. The government's performance is pathetic." ...

BBC NEWS 30 March 2009

Going for broke is no longer an option for Darling

The final piece of bad news is that the burgeoning deficit not only fails to boost the economy, it also fails the longer-term test of making Britain a cleaner, greener place to live. Listening to Brown, Darling and other ministers you could be forgiven for thinking that tens of billions would be spent on a low-carbon future. The prime minister suggested that 10% of the stimulus would be going to environmentally important technologies and green jobs.

Here's the reality. HSBC bank compared stimulus packages around the world and found that the share of spending considered to be environmental in Britain was 7%; about half the international average of 15%. In South Korea it was 80%.

There was a green element to the £20bn PBR package worth £535m. Much of that was brought forward from future plans, the actual increase in new and additional spending was the £105m to improve energy efficiency.

A report from Greenpeace out today notes drily: "New and additional green measures will delay the accumulation of UK emissions by five and a half hours by the end of 2011."

The £105m additional spending is a fraction - less than 13% - of the annual bonus package for staff at the failed Royal Bank of Scotland, estimated at approximately £775m. Message to ministers. Don't spend it all at once.

Guardian 30 March 2009

A Green New Deal

Britain 'needs deeper CO2 cuts'

We need to turn carbon into gold

Carbon credit

What message, and whose, from Copenhagen?

So prepare yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, for the worst scam of all. It’s another reward for failure, but this one offers no prospect of rescuing the economy. Thanks to its cunning disguise as an environmental measure, we seem willing to be conned ...

I’m talking about the scrappage payments being proposed by almost everyone linked to the motor industry: the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, most of the big car firms, the AA and the unions.

Lord Mandelson is said to be a fan.

They argue that drivers should be paid around £2000 a head to scrap their old cars and buy new ones. As well as saving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers, this, they say, will catalyse a low carbon transport revolution. It’s bunkum ...

Monbiot.com 10 March 2009

Jaguar set for £27m grant for new 'greener' Range Rover

Ministers accelerate support for car industry

Government gives Jaguar Land Rover £27m for green 4X4

“The No. 1 thing will be for everyone to see that the U.S. is on an urgent and transformational path to a low carbon economy — that would have a galvanizing effect,” said John Ashton, the British foreign secretary’s special representative for climate change.

The Obama administration has said that it will push through federal legislation this year to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States — a promise that Mr. Obama reiterated Tuesday in his speech to Congress. ...

Negotiating the treaty when countries are under extreme economic stress presents challenges, Mr. de Boer acknowledged. Politicians in Italy and Canada have complained that it will be difficult to clean up industries to meet their Kyoto goals because of the economic downturn. But others say a global industrial recession, in which emissions tend to drop anyway and countries are poised to spend billions to stimulate economies, is the time to craft a global effort to combat global warming ...

A more complex issue is whether negotiators will retain the system of trading carbon credits that is central to the Kyoto Protocol, a kind of global commodities market for carbon.

That system allows developed countries that produce more than their allotted share of emissions to balance their emissions budget by investing in projects that curtail emissions elsewhere. Such projects might include the cleaning up of a coal power plant in China, planting trees in Africa or converting pig manure to electricity in the Netherlands. The same cap and trade concept is now used in Europe’s emissions.

But as the European Union and the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol have tried such projects over the past few years, problems have emerged. Most notably, it is hard to determine the emissions-reducing value of carbon credit projects, making it easy to game the system. The new treaty, experts say, will also have to broaden Kyoto’s focus beyond industrial emissions to activities like airline travel, one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. In the end, it will also have to include financial mechanisms and technical assistance to help developing countries cope with climate change ...

NYT 28 February 2009

On a remote Andean plain in Bolivia, a short drive on unpaved roads from the world's largest salt flat, 120 government workers are constructing a facility to help power the fuel-efficient electric cars of the future ...

Government officials think that Bolivia possesses the world's biggest lithium reserves, and they also think that the country is poised to profit big-time from the automakers' push to develop electric cars that will run on lithium ion batteries ...

Bolivia ... has long experience with foreigners who've exploited its minerals - tin, silver and gold - and its mineworkers, and with neighbouring countries that have annexed its Pacific coast, part of its oil fields and its rubber-growing region ...

In La Paz, Bolivia's capital, mining minister Echazu still brims with confidence. He said that foreign companies are welcome, but they must follow the government's orders.

Francisco Quisbert, who heads a powerful local union in Uyuni ... thinks that Bolivia's lithium will lift thousands from poverty, but he warns that foreign companies must come only on Bolivia's terms ...

Guardian 02 February 2009

Bolivia has lithium

Bolivia's Lithium Reserves Could Power Electric Car Boom

Bolivia's next bounty: lithium

Bolivia

Now that the price has collapsed again, we need to examine the deeper failings of the carbon market.

It is not simply a question of Europe's power companies cashing in on a surplus of allowances which should have been sold rather than given away to them for free.

The carbon markets themselves were designed by many of the same Chicago School economists who brought us derivatives trading, and they adopt a similar logic.

New financial products are made by parcelling up real world objects into commodities – in this case, "carbon".

To make the market function, a broad range of very different activities are then treated as equivalent, although you don't need to be a climate scientist to see that burning more coal and oil is not eliminated by building more hydro-electric dams or capturing the methane in coal mines – and that funding the latter to cancel out the former can end up subsidising the very industries that need to change if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change ...

Guardian 01 February 2009

Carbon trading may be the new sub-prime

... Bryony Worthington, an expert on climate change and founder of sandbag.org.uk, said:

"What should have been a way to kick-start investment in much needed low-carbon, efficient technologies is now a cash redistribution exercise."

A study commissioned by the WWF environmental organisation from Point Carbon, published in March last year, estimated that "windfall profits" of between €23bn and €71bn (£20.9bn-£64.4bn) would be made under the ETS between 2008 and 2012, on the basis that the price of carbon would be between €21 and €32.

Up to €15bn could be made by British companies that were given credits they did not need.

Guardian 30 January 2009

Carbon price falls to new low

Emissions Trading

Carbon offsetting

Carbon Trade Watch

More than $10 trillion must be invested in clean technology between now and 2030 to spare the Earth from an unsustainable increase in global temperature, the World Economic Forum warned today ...

The study identified eight emerging, large-scale clean energy sectors that were seen as playing a crucial role in the transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy strategy over the next two decades. These were: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal electricity generation, municipal solar waste-to-energy, sugar-based ethanol, cellulosic and next-generation biofuels, and geothermal power.

Max von Bismarck and Anuradha Gurung from the World Economic Forum, and Chris Greenwood and Michael Liebreich from New Energy Finance, said "enormous investment in energy infrastructure is required to address the twin threats of energy insecurity and climate change. In light of the global financial crisis, it is crucial that every dollar is made to 'multi-task' to create a sustainable low-carbon economy."

At a time when the global economy has been struggling, the report said business had an opportunity to make healthy profits from the fight against climate change. An index of the world's 90 leading clean energy companies had a five-year compounded annualised return of almost 10%, unmatched by the world's major stock indices.

Earlier a group of climate change experts including Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the UK government's report on the economics of climate change, warned against complacency in the UN climate talks, due to conclude in December in Copenhagen to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. They said the economic and climate change agendas should be yoked together in 2009 to ensure that spending had long-term benefits for the environment.

Guardian 29 January 2009

WEF: Davos

Geoengineering

Severn Barrage

The 'give-away' is in the bit about emissions trading: others in the 'third world' are going to help lower Mr Walsh's target for him!

Mr Walsh ... announced that BA intended to halve net carbon dioxide emissions from 16 million tonnes in 2005 to eight million by 2050.

Mr Walsh said: "Some people say that in economic times as desperately tough as these, we can afford to put climate change issues on one side. I could not disagree more.

"Halving net CO2 by 2050 is an extremely challenging target. But it is one I am sure we can achieve.

"We will make progress through investment in cleaner aircraft, use of alternative fuels, more efficient flight routings and the spread of emissions trading from Europe to the whole world.

"We have taken climate change issues very seriously for a long time. More than a decade ago, we became the first airline to publish fuel efficiency targets - and we have achieved an improvement since then of almost 30%.

"We are the only airline to have experience of emissions trading, and we have helped fund research into lower-carbon aviation fuels. We are currently working closely with Rolls-Royce to develop alternative fuel opportunities."

The Independent 23 January 2009

Tories plan 'energy revolution'

Street plug-points for electric cars, smart meters, and energy efficiency loans for homes are among Tory plans for an "energy revolution".

David Cameron launched plans he said would lower carbon emissions, create jobs and reduce oil and gas imports ...

The Conservatives say it would also pave the way for large-scale use of renewable energy sources, by introducing "feed in tariffs" - paid by power companies to people who generate power via wind turbines and solar panels.

They would also make more use of technologies like tidal power and biogas - creating power out of the waste vegetable matter from farms or households.

And they say they would introduce a new "national recharging network" to encourage the use of electric cars and hybrid cars. ...

BBC NEWS 16 January 2009

Cameron for "green coal"

Powering ahead

Tories seize the green power initiative

Is Cameron still keen to be green?

The Conservative green report

Government 'destroys jobs' by delaying green revolution

The government is to close a key support programme for renewable energies almost a year before it launches a new regime, creating a funding black hole that the industry has warned could lead to thousands of green job losses.

As Gordon Brown hosts a jobs summit specifically to discuss the creation of green jobs to combat the 100,000 job losses a month caused by the recession and safeguard the economy's long-term prosperity, it emerges that the government is planning to close the major part of its controversial low carbon buildings programme in June.

Ed Miliband's Department of Energy and Climate Change has bowed to pressure from the renewables industry and environmentalists and is planning to introduce a "feed-in tariff" - which pays owners of wind turbines, solar panels or biomass boilers a premium rate for the energy they produce. But it will not be launched until April 2010 at the earliest ...

The LCBP has financed about 5,000 projects, such as wind turbines or solar panels for houses, schools or public buildings, over the past three years. Germany, by contrast, is installing 300,000 solar photovoltaic systems alone each year.

The LCBP has been dogged by under-funding and revamps. Maximum grants to households were cut right back last year and so the take-up of funding by individuals ran last year at about half its 2006 rate. The household part of the LCBP, "phase one", actually lasts until June 2010 but will probably be underspent ...

Guardian 12 January 2009   

Heathrow train plan to allay environmental fears

(Lord) Adonis said the government was enthusiastic about proposals for a £4.5 billion station called the Heathrow hub, which could slash more than two hours off train journeys from some British cities to European destinations.

Supporters of the scheme say it would extend the high-speed European rail network, which currently stops at London, north to benefit the rest of Britain.

The hub, which would be the country’s largest railway station, was first proposed as an alternative to the third runway by the Tories, who argued that the extra capacity needed at Heathrow could be shifted on to rail rather than air.

Now, in a surprise move, the government appears ready to embrace both projects. It could use the new railway station’s environmental credentials as a “sweetener” for giving a polluting third runway the go-ahead ...

Sunday Times 04 January 2009    Aviation

'We're still way, way off the mark'

The package also allows European countries to meet two-thirds of its commitments by paying countries outside the EU to reduce their emissions on their behalf.

The obligation to reduce emissions within EU borders will be minimal - potentially no more than a 5 per cent target - and sets a devastating example to the rest of the world ...

Greenpeace 12 December 2008

EU leaders reach compromise deal on emissions

It's Hearts for the Third World, but it's Spades for the EU.

Colin Butfield, head of campaigns at WWF-UK, said:

"Europe has essentially decided to offset almost two thirds of its own greenhouse gas emissions, to have consumers pay for emissions permits that polluting companies will have received for free and to avoid supporting poorer countries in the fight to tackle climate change."

While everyone agrees the headline target of 20% cuts in greenhouse gases by 2020 is sacrosanct, the disputes were about how to get there.

The heart of the scheme is the "cap-and-trade" or emissions trading system which is to supply around half of the cuts in greenhouse gases. The ceiling for industrial pollution levels is progressively lowered and industries and companies pay to pollute by buying permits in an auction system.

The pay-to-pollute principle is supposed to kick in from 2013, but was highly contentious. Germany, in particular, demanded that 30 industrial sectors be given their permits free of charge. The sectors are responsible for 90% of emissions in the scheme.

If the Germans win the argument, the incentives for going greener will be minimised and revenue from the scheme will collapse ...

Guardian 12 December 2008

Brown's spending crunch reveals the failure to select long-term priorities.

Spending on two aircraft carriers - which are a manifestation of the illusory New Liberal Imperialism - has been postponed for two years.

So we still 'need' these two virility symbols to "project force" on behalf of corporate capital!

Spending on renewable energy seems to be a lesser priority, so Hearts turns to Spades:

Offshore wind farm plans in jeopardy without support

Plans to build the world's biggest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary are under threat unless the Government boosts incentives for renewable energy investment, it is claimed.

The London Array project is not the only one in jeopardy. Without an overhaul of the rewards system, the offshore installations vital to meeting ambitious EU environmental targets will simply not get built, energy suppliers are warning.

Once up and running, the London Array's 341 massive turbines, covering 90 square miles, will produce one gigawatt (GW) of electricity, enough to power 750,000 homes. But construction costs for offshore wind farms have shot up by more than a third in the past year.

One high-profile backer, Shell, has already walked away because the economics of the investment could not be made to work. Even the involvement of Masdar, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund which bought into the consortium in October, cannot guarantee the project's future, according to E.on, a partner in the scheme ... Big offshore projects like the London Array are crucial to meeting Britain's commitment to ensuring that 15 per cent of its energy is from renewable sources by 2020. But the boom in demand is putting such pressure on the industry's meagre supply chain that prices have gone through the roof.

Offshore wind farms currently come in at about £3bn per gigawatt, compared with about £2bn a year ago and just £600m for a gas-fired power station. Even nuclear power – at about £1.8bn per GW, looks a lot cheaper by comparison.

The Independent 12 December 2008   

Are carbon offsetters taking us for a ride?

Flying somewhere this Christmas, or planning a ski trip? Arguably, given the carbon emissions involved, you just shouldn't.

But if you do, will you offset those flight emissions? Some people fuss that the offset companies are a green con. How do we know the trees we pay for won't die? Are we just subsidising renewable energy projects that were going to happen anyway?

Fair questions. But questions for another day. I have another problem. Why does the price of offsetting vary so much? Are we being ripped off? ...

Let's start with ClimateCare, based in Oxford. I have offset with them before, because I like the people and the projects.

For a return economy flight from Heathrow to JFK in New York, they reckon my emissions are 1.53 tonnes. Earlier this week they wanted to charge me nearly £9 a tonne, making a total of £13.22 ... Your money goes to fund some cooking stoves in Cambodia or wind turbines in Inner Mongolia.

But a more or less random sample of other offsetters this week provided me with some very different offers.

The London-based CarbonNeutral company and Carbonpassport in Glasgow both say my New York return journey emits just over 1.3 tonnes. Terrapass in San Francisco puts it at just 0.84 tonnes. While Atmosfair in Berlin suggests I will be responsible for 3.48 tonnes.

All are measuring the CO2 the same way; all are assuming a regular economy flight. The differences are baffling.

Then there is the price charged per tonne, which ranges from £17.50 at Carbonpassport to only half that with CarbonNeutral.

Put it all together, and Terrapass swears that I can offset my transatlantic hop with them for a measly $11.90 or £8.00. CarbonNeutral sound competitive at £11.90. But Atmosfairs wants €81, or £69.85 ...

... Paul Hooper of Manchester Metropolitan University's centre for air transport and the environment ... found a sixfold difference in the price charged per tonne of carbon emitted.

And, taking in the higher charges that some offsetting companies make for a bigger, business- or first-class seat, discovered price tags for a return trip from London to Sydney that ranged from £9.48 to a staggering £643.39, almost a 70-fold difference ...

... in recent months, there has been a shake-down in the carbon offsetting business. The start-ups are being taken over. The enthusiasts in cardigans and riding bicycles are giving way to money men in sharp suits driving limos. A few months ago my own favourite, ClimateCare, got gobbled up by Wall Street investment bank JPMorgan.

Call me prejudiced, but suddenly I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.

Guardian 11 December 2008

Obama: Economy will get worse before it improves

Mr Obama outlined an audacious plan to jump-start the economy by spending an estimated $600bn (£400bn) rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure. He said he intends to spend on a scale not seen since the interstate highway system was built 50 years ago ...

Mr Obama's plans to reboot the economy go beyond infrastructure to include tax cuts and lifelines to state governments, some of which are edging towards bankruptcy. The aim, the President-elect said, was to fight the recession by creating millions of new jobs in a more sustainable, less energy-dependent economy ...

He also intends to spend heavily on revamping public buildings such as schools and hospitals which waste energy. There are also plans to create a "smart electric grid" that will tap into the country's vast potential to generate wind energy and transport it to the big centres of population ...

Of immediate concern are the country's three big car manufacturers, which face bankruptcy causing the loss of millions more jobs unless they, like the banks, get a government bailout.

But Mr Obama had uncharacteristically harsh words for highly paid leaders of the industry, declaring: "If they want to survive, then they'd better start building a fuel-efficient car," and accept that the future will never again be as "rosy as they project".

He went on to say that because "the auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing," employing millions across many states, "I don't think it's an option to allow it simply to collapse." ...

The Independent 08 December 2008   

Ford Makes Concessions in Effort to Get Government Help

(But are they enough to qualify as 'Hearts'?)

Ford Motor Co., unveiling a business plan demanded by Congress before it approves aid for the Big Three U.S. automakers, disclosed today that it is seeking a bridge loan of up to $9 billion and that it expects to break even or become profitable in 2011.

The company also said it would invest about $14 billion in the United States on advanced technologies and products to improve vehicle fuel efficiency over the next seven years.

And it provided initial details of a plan to build a family of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles. It said the latter, known as BEVs, would include a van for commercial fleet use in 2010 and a sedan in 2011 ...

Ford vowed to improve the fuel economy of its vehicles -- compared to its 2005 fleet -- by an average of 14 percent for 2009 models, 26 percent for 2012 models and 36 percent for 2015 models ...

Washington Post 02 December 2008

US expands auto industry bail-out

Bush set to intervene over car industry bailout

World markets slump as US car industry bail-out fails

Senate throws out US car industry bailout

Deal to Rescue American Automakers Is Moving Ahead

State aid for lame-duck car makers

US carmakers prompted to plead for $14bn in immediate relief

Auto Executives Still Find Skeptics

US carmakers' plea under scrutiny

Brown's plan to save rainforests

A new global deal to protect the world's rainforests has been proposed in a report drawn up for Gordon Brown.

The idea is part of a review into deforestation and green energy by Swedish businessman Johan Eliasch.

The ex-Tory donor says cash put aside for carbon saving in rich countries should be transferred to nations with rainforests in need of protection.

Rainforest destruction accounts for about a fifth of the carbon emissions blamed for fuelling climate change ...

Brown's plan to save rainforests

Amazon rainforest

Jim Hansen's letter to Gordon Brown

Answering a question from a reporter from China, Mr. Obama managed to acknowledge that he had to care most about how American workers and companies were affected by globalization, while still making the argument for why globalization was in America’s best interest.

“Look, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the president of China,” Mr. Obama said. Then he added, “It is also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate, is tied up with the larger world.”

Mr. Obama said that if America neglected or abandoned poor countries, “not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us.”

“Unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who’s going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.”

NYT 02 April 2009

It is a cause of bitter mirth in the poor world that among the conditionalities the IMF and World Bank demand are 'good governance' and 'democratization'.

Their own governance of the economy of poor nations could scarcely be more damaging, while in terms of accountability, transparency and the ability of their subject peoples to dislodge them by peaceful means, they about as democratic as the government of Burma.

The nations they control, and in which they claim to be encouraging 'democratization', are permitted to choose only one political and economic strategy: market fundamentalism. It is imposed with a zeal which, at times, appears totalitarian.

They work like this because, though they operate on the poor, they are controlled by the rich. ... The G8 nations possess 49 per cent of the votes within the IMF and ... 48 per cent of the vote within the World Bank.

... these figures ... make these bodies look rather more democratic than they are, for they create the impression that if the rest of the world pooled its votes, it could turn a decision against the rich nations.

The constitution of both bodies ensures that all major decisions require an 85 per cent majority. The US alone possesses 17 per cent of the vote in the IMF, and ... 18 per cent of the votes in the world bank. By itself ... it can veto any substantial resolution put forward by another country, even if all the other members support it.

Just in case the poorer countries somehow fail to get the message, the Managing Director of the IMF is always a European, and his deputy is always a North American, while the President of the World Bank is always a citizen of the United States, nominated by the US Treasury Secretary.

Both institutions are based in Washington DC.

The result is that there is one rule for the rich and one for the poor. While the poor nations are forced to beggar themselves to pay their unpayable debts, the world's biggest international debtor, the United States, which owes a total of $2.2 trillion, is left to its own devices: it suffers from no externally imposed austerity programmes, inflation control or forced liberalisation.

Indeed, one of the reasons why America's indebtedness has not resulted in its economic collapse is that the IMF and World Bank insist that the foreign exchange reserves other nations maintain to defend themselves from speculative attacks are held in the form of dollars.

This reinforces the dollar's position as the dominant international currency, artificially enhances its value, and permits the United States to reap three significant subsidies from poorer nations.

• The first arises from the fact that dollar reserves must be invested in assets in the United States, which boosts US capital accounts.
• The second is that poorer nations must pay around eighteen per cent interest on the dollars they borrow, yet they lend back to the US at three per cent.
• The third is that a government issuing currency obtains what is known as seignorage: the difference between the value of that currency and the cost of producing it.

Not only are the IMF and the World Bank helping to destroy the economies of weaker nations, but they are also helping to sustain the economic dominance, and therefore the political hegemony, of the United States.

America's Own Kleptocracy

EU leaders push for new framework

Fiat Currency

France calls for uniform global financial rules

Gangster Economics

Global Trade Watch

Friends of the Earth: WTO

Governments v Libertarians

How the neoliberals stitched up the wealth of nations for themselves

Identifying secrecy jurisdictions

It's Time to Decommission the IMF, World Bank and WTO

Obama backs crackdown on tax havens

The gods that failed

The Shock Doctrine

Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF

The Wrecking Crew

Vulture Funds

Wealth gap creating a social time bomb

WTO: "a secretive, shadowy body"