Independent Exclusive: UK Backlash grows over Cameron’s green sell-out
Image via Wikipedia
David Cameron today faces a revolt of business leaders, councils, environment campaigners and unions furious at his decision to cut funding for household solar energy, severely undermining his claim that the coalition would be the “greenest government ever”.
Click HERE to read the letter in full
In a letter to the Prime Minister seen by The Independent on Sunday, a coalition of 55 individuals and groups warns he will “strangle at birth” Britain’s booming solar panel industry – threatening 25,000 jobs – by halving the state subsidy for the popular “feed-in tariff” scheme.
The funding for households who feed excess electricity generated by their solar panels into the national grid is to be cut from 43p to 21p per kilowatt hour (kwh) from next month, doubling the length of time people would have to wait before their solar panels became economically viable.
The feed-in tariff scheme is one of the most popular environmental measures introduced by any government. It has already been adopted by 100,000 private and housing association homes, and was championed by David Cameron within weeks of him becoming Conservative leader.
Yet last month ministers announced that, from 12 December, the subsidies would be cut in half, despite claims they were consulting on the plan.
A letter by a broad alliance – from the Federation of Small Businesses and house-building organisations to council leaders from all three political parties, as well as the Town and Country Planning Association – has been organised by Friends of the Earth and the Cut Don’t Kill campaign, which is pressing for the Government to temper the reforms. Mr Cameron and Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, are also under pressure from the Confederation of British Industry, whose chief, John Cridland, said the measure was an “own goal”. Mr Huhne has also been warned that 20 Liberal Democrat MPs – more than a third of the parliamentary party – are fighting the proposals.
In scathing language, the letter tells Mr Cameron: “This could only knock confidence in the UK’s determination to build a low-carbon economy and hugely undermine your determination to lead the ‘greenest Government ever’.”
In his first week as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron told civil servants at the Department for Energy and Climate Change: “I want us to be the greenest government ever – a very simple ambition and one that I’m absolutely committed to achieving.” Yet the solar electricity cut is just the latest in a series of U-turns and retreats on environmental policies by the coalition government.
The boom in solar energy has not been confined to middle-class families: 100,000 properties belonging to housing associations have applied for panels on their roofs.
The feed-in tariff scheme’s popularity has led to its downfall, as ministers claim they must scale back the subsidies to keep funds within the £867m budget.
Howard Johns, of the Cut Don’t Kill campaign, said: “This is poorly thought out, counterproductive and absurdly rushed. David Cameron can set this right and prove his commitment to green growth by stepping in to prevent such a deep cut. We can accept a cut, but the current proposal is devastating.”
Caroline Flint, Labour’s climate change spokesperson, said: “Until consumers are offered a simple, fair tariff, and all energy producers are forced to sell their energy to any supplier, the public will not be given a fair choice; people power alone will be unable to force down prices.”
But Greg Barker, Climate Change minister, said: “My priority is to put the solar industry on a firm footing so that it can remain a successful and prosperous part of the green economy, and so that it doesn’t fall victim to boom and bust.”
A typical solar panel installation costs around £12,000, meaning homeowners have to wait eight years under the feed-in-tariff rate of 43p per kwh to earn the money back. This would double to 16 years’ payback time under the new 21p rate.
Environmental u-turns: How PM has failed to make his government ‘greenest ever’
Planning New rules will strip away protection of the countryside from development – the Government has so far resisted a continuing, widespread campaign against the plans.
Motorway speeds To the horror of environmental campaigners, the Government is raising the limit to 80mph, adding more than two million tons a year to carbon emissions.
Forests Ministers announced last year a mass sell-off, despite no reference in the Conservative manifesto or coalition agreement, but a public campaign forced a U-turn.
Green investment bank A flagship environmental policy has been severely undermined by a Treasury block on it providing loans. It will not be allowed to borrow until 2015.
Eco-homes Another legacy of Labour, but any new homes built with “zero carbon” credentials will not have carbon emissions from electrical appliances counted, undermining the definition.
Quangos The Forestry Commission, Natural England and the Environment Agency have all been prevented from policy-making, while the Sustainable Development Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution have been axed.
Illegal tropical timber Ministers have scrapped a Conservative manifesto pledge to criminalise the possession of illegal tropical timber.
Aggregates The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, which diverted £20m in taxes raised from the sand and gravel industry to 200 green projects, has been scrapped.
Related articles
- Cuts to solar panel scheme could be ‘phased in’ after public backlash (telegraph.co.uk)
- Row Over UK Feed-In Tariffs Gets Political. And Decidedly Nasty. (treehugger.com)
- MP calls for transparency over green taxes on energy bills (guardian.co.uk)
- David Cameron Will Name And Shame Britain’s ‘Drift Along’ Schools (huffingtonpost.co.uk)
- UK Climate Minister: Solar Subsidies “Morally Wrong” (junkscience.com)
- Chris Huhne attacks ‘curmudgeons and faultfinders’ who don’t like wind farms (telegraph.co.uk)
- The green speech David Cameron should give | Damian Carrington (guardian.co.uk)
- Letters: Government U-turn needed on solar energy tariffs (guardian.co.uk)
Who is most pro-environment? And the best for education? The parties and their policies….
Yesterday the Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched the election 2010 campaign. But what do the three main political parties and what they stand for regarding the environment and education – key issues for readers of this blog.
MY OVERALL VIEW: Each party seems to have a mixed bag of positives and ideas that are not so pro-environment or education. With some oustanding efforts, particularly at Copenhagen, Labour has for me lost their way re the environment somewhat. A ban on fox hunting, lack of joined up thinking on a low-carbon environment (Transition Towns) and the ‘environment’ is not at the heart of the curriculum eg. lack of adequate funding re school trips – as illustarted in a previous blog. Conservatives relaunch to be the ‘pro-environment party’ yet the ‘environment’ again not at the heart of the curriculum. Hoorah for their Heathrow policy yet they would repeal the ban on fox hunting! The Lib Dems are positively focussed on ending our over-reliance on Nuclear power, with promises of investment in renewable energy and the ‘Green Grid’. But will they ever get enough votes to gain power or do we need a change in the form of ‘proportional representation’. Or otherwise, a major change in the form of the Greens?
And what do you think?
Source: The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/where-the-parties-stand-education-1930588.html
Environment
Labour http://www2.labour.org.uk/home is promising the make the transition towards a low-carbon economy that would not only tackle climate change but also provide large numbers of new green jobs, with the aim of seeing 1.2m people in environment-related employment by the end of the current decade. The party aims to give a quarter of British homes a full eco-makeover by 2020 and to install a smart meter in every home, also by 2020, making it easier to cut energy use and save money on bills; to give a further six million households help with insulation by 2012, and to have phased out high-energy light bulbs in favour of energy efficient ones by next year. The party would also continue with major efforts to tackle climate change internationally. Labour would maintain the ban on fox hunting, which the Tories would seek to repeal.
MY VIEW: With some oustanding efforts, partuicularly at Copenhagen, labour has for me lost their way re the environment somewhat. Good: Climate change and ban on fox hunting. Unconvinced re low-carbon (lack of joined up thinking )http://www.transitionnetwork.org/ and environment not at the heart of the curriculum http://www.naee.org.uk/eg. lack of adequate funding re school trips – see previous blog.
What do you you think?
David Cameron rebranded the Tory Party http://www.conservatives.com/with a green paintbrush but there are signs – watched anxiously by environmentalists – that the environment is losing its allure for the party. Although they back the current Government’s climate change targets for cutting carbon emissions and want restrictions on coal-fired power stations, they have yet to endorse publicly its renewable energy programme for building windfarms (not popular in the shires). Their most prominent green selling point at the moment is their pledge to cancel the planned third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport, and replace it with a high-speed rail line to the north. On the countryside, they would bring in a bill to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, the measure that outlawed foxhunting, and allow a free vote on it in government time.
MY VIEW: Unconvinced relaunch to be the ‘pro-environment party’; environment still not at the heart of the curriculum. Good: Heathrow. Bad: repealing ban on fox hunting.
What do you you think?
Most distinctively, the Lib Dems http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.aspx would scrap the move towards new nuclear power, which has been endorsed by the other main parties as part of their strategy to combat climate change, on the grounds that there are no plans yet to dispose of the new waste arisings and there will have to be a massive public subsidy to build any new plants. Instead, the party promises a massive programme of investment in renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar power, and ways to make the cost of energy less of a burden, with a fair social tariff system for disadvantaged families. On the countryside, the Lib Dems promise to promote schemes to enhance wildlife, such as a “Green National Grid“, which would link the habitats of rare species.
MY VIEW: Good: end Nuclear power over-reliance (though this is a large debate!), renewable energy and Green Grid. Will they ever get enough local votes to get into power…need proportional representation.
What do you you think?
Education
Labour would introduce a new school report card system – grading all schools on a range of issues such as exam performance, children’s wellbeing and behaviour. Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has said he believes they would give more information to parents than the current league tables based on raw results. Parents would also be given the power to ballot on a change of leadership if enough of them were concerned about the way their children’s school was being run. Labour has also indicated it is willing to see the controversial external national curriculum tests for 11-year-olds replaced by teacher assessments if the these prove robust enough.
MY VIEW: Unconvinced: Government has spent last years bringing in ever-more strategies and directives, putting more pressure on already over-worked teacheers. Bad: card system (not more paper work, please!) and parents having more power. Good: scrap tests.
What do you you think?
Tories Sweeping changes to the education system with the adoption of a Swedish-style education system whereby parents, teachers, universities and faith groups would be encouraged to set up their own independent “free” schools. In addition, all schools ranked outstanding by Ofsted, the education standards watchdog, would be given the right to become academies from September. Their heads would also be encouraged to take over failing schools in a bid to turn them round. An Education Bill to bring in these changes would be brought in immediately after the election. Moves to boost the quality of teaching would see stricter entry requirements for the profession with only those with a 2:2 degree or above qualifying for teacher training places. On discipline, appeals against exclusions would be abolished and the final word on disciplinary problems would rest with the headteacher.
MY VIEW: Unconvinced by what seems a very mixed bag of ideas Good: Worth trying the swedish system; exclusions idea. Bad: 2:2 degree – qualifications do make for better teachers!
What do you you think?
The key pledge in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto will be to introduce a “pupil premium” – which will mean schools get extra cash for every pupil on free school meals they take on. The £2.5bn plan, which would mean an extra £2,500 per pupil for schools, would be funded from tax credits and would aim to provide an incentive to heads to enrol pupils from poor families. The party would also return to the exam system envisaged by the former chief schools inspector Sir Mike Tomlinson – with an overarching diploma covering both academic and vocational qualifications. The party is also committed to abolishing top-up fees for students of £3,240 a year – although it acknowledges that economic circumstances may prevent it from implementing this pledge in the short term.
MY VIEW: Good: Pupil premium could work; academic and vocational useful differentiated focus for young people who are not ‘academic’
What do you you think?
New whaling – the great betrayal? Are we, yet again, to attack the oceans…?
In The Independent today comes a major blow against the whales: Outrage as secret deal set to sweep away international moratorium
The moratorium on commercial whaling, one of the environmental movement’s greatest achievements, looks likely to be swept away this summer by a new international deal being negotiated behind closed doors. The new arrangement would legitimise the whaling activities of the three countries which have continued to hunt whales in defiance of the ban – Japan, Norway and Iceland – and would allow commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994.
Conservationists regard it as catastrophic, but fear there is a very real chance of its being accepted at the next IWC meeting.
MY VIEW: New Zealand, it seems, may be about to let down – the whale! Two weeks ago, I wrote in praise of my native country, saying how wonderful that New Zealand was pursuing whale watching as a major eco-tourism concept; it also leads the way in the setting up of marine reserves. A respondent then said there were many anomalies in what some people ‘saw’ NZ’s actions and what was actually happening … (see that blog for details). I stood corrected… Today, New Zealand stands ‘with’ those nations – not against as it has done certainly on some occasions – who wish to allow limited quotas on catching whales.
This ‘allowance’ smacks of our greed as human creatures, confusing that which we ‘want’ – and will take seemingly at any and all cost - with what we really ‘need’! We are jealously going after creatures that are already rare or endangered, and risking their individual lives and the seas’ very biodiversity, for what? The appetite for some protein, some whale meat, a scientific experiment or the thrill of the chase and be able to show we have dominion!?
But dominion means ‘looking after’ and valuing. Can we, as humans, only ’value’ something we have caught? Are whales to be martyrs to the cause of our cultural political indulgence? Do we have an inability to co-exist with Nature?
Full article:
The moratorium on commercial whaling, one of the environmental movement’s greatest achievements, looks likely to be swept away this summer by a new international deal being negotiated behind closed doors. The new arrangement would legitimise the whaling activities of the three countries which have continued to hunt whales in defiance of the ban – Japan, Norway and Iceland – and would allow commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994.
Conservationists regard it as catastrophic, but fear there is a very real chance of its being accepted at the next IWC meeting in Morocco in June, not least because it is being strongly supported by the US – previously one of whaling’s most determined opponents.
Should the deal go ahead, it would represent one of the most significant setbacks ever for conservation, and as big a failure for wildlife protection as December’s Copenhagen conference was for action on climate change.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/whaling-the-great-betrayal-1925387.html
Oil spill – BP may not be ‘negligent’ but the industry IS ruinous against our ocean
The Guardian reports on BP and the oil industry….
Analysts said that blaming the oil industry, and not singling out BP, would help the company in its fight against being found guilty of gross negligence. But industry and legal sources told the Guardian that BP would still have to strike a deal out of court to settle myriad lawsuits.
BP is more likely to escape the potentially ruinous charge of gross negligence, according to City analysts, after a powerful US commission blamed “systemic” causes for the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Barack Obama’s national commission released part of its final report into the disaster last night on Wednesday night. The report, to be published next week, could influence several other parallel investigations into the spill that are yet to finish.
The commission was scathing in its criticism of BP, as well as its contractors Halliburton and Transocean, which it blamed for a collective “failure of management”. But it added that it had found no evidence that the blowout which led to last April’s disaster was the result of “aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials”.
Commission co-chair William K Reilly said: “So a key question posed from the outset by this tragedy is, do we have a single company, BP, that blundered with fatal consequences, or a more pervasive problem of a complacent industry? Given the documented failings of both Transocean and Halliburton, both of which serve the offshore industry in virtually every ocean, I reluctantly conclude we have a system-wide problem.”
Analysts said that blaming the oil industry, and not singling out BP, would help the company in its fight against being found guilty of gross negligence. But industry and legal sources told the Guardian that BP would still have to strike a deal out of court to settle myriad lawsuits. Separately, the US justice department has launched a civil action against BP and is investigating potential criminal violations.
BP shares rose by more than 2% during morning trading in London but finished the day slightly down. Analysts expect BP to resume paying dividends – which were suspended last summer under intense White House pressure – when it reports full-year results on 1 February, as the company tries to move on from the disaster.
Before the spill the company paid out $10bn (£6.5bn) annually to shareholders but it is likely to resume dividends at only half that level. Investors could receive dividends for the last quarter of 2010 as soon as March.
Analyst Peter Hitchens, of stockbroker Panmure Gordon, said: “The national commission’s report is another chink of light for BP. BP was named and held responsible in the report but it also said ‘we can’t solely blame BP’.
“It’s hinting that there won’t be a finding of gross negligence. What seems to be coming through is there was an unfortunate string of accidents which led to the disaster. BP had a near-death experience. But time is a great healer for BP, it seems.”
The national commission report was also highly critical of the now-disbanded offshore regulator, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which it previously accused of giving a higher priority to increasing production in the gulf than to safety. The full report, to be released on Tuesday, is likely to recommend a radical overhaul of the regulatory regime to improve offshore drilling.
Charlie Kronick, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: “The report sets up a big flag that the regulatory regime is going to be much tighter. The new regulator has already indicated that it won’t be a permit-fest once new guidelines for offshore drilling are drawn up.”
But he said that pointing the finger at BP’s contractors should not exonerate the company from blame. “Halliburton and Transocean were operating on BP’s behalf. It’s hard to see how that lets BP off the hook.”
If BP avoids a charge of gross negligence it will be able to charge its junior partners in the fateful Macondo well – Anadarko and Mitsui – for a third of the costs. US federal fines would triple under a gross negligence finding, with JP Morgan estimating that the total bill for BP under this scenario could be as high as $69bn.
BP has made good progress in its programme of selling assets worth $25-30bn, having netted about $20bn so far.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/06/bp-gulf-oil-spill-commission
Lessons from the oil spill…
Following one of the biggest disasters in recent history, BP boss Tony Hayward admitted to his company’s insufficient response to the Deepwater Horizon rig accident in the Gulf of Mexico. But was there anything better they could have done to avert the tragedy?
January 8, 2011 – Washington
Following one of the biggest disasters in recent history, BP boss Tony Hayward admitted to his company’s insufficient response to the Deepwater Horizon rig accident in the Gulf of Mexico. But was there anything better they could have done to avert the tragedy?
Obama’s commission pointed out lack of safety procedures as a determining factor behind the disaster.
“Major accidents such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico could also happen in the North Sea. But strong, organizational barriers between the oil industry, trade unions and the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway reduce the risk,” says Preben Lindoe, professor of societal safety and security at the University of Stavanger, Norway.
The researchers compare oil industry regulation in the USA, Great Britain and Norway.
The US regulator, Minerals Management Service, carries out inspections based on a fairly meticulous body of rules. Inspectors are transported to offshore installations, equipped with long and detailed check lists.
Norwegian authorities rely on the companies administering their safety work themselves. The model is based on trust – built up over time.
“The reason this model has succeeded in Norway, is because the parties have been able to fill the concept of internal control with substance. Both employers and unions are involved in developing industrial standards and good practice which can be adhered to,” he said.
“When attention fades, accidents happen more easily, and are followed by increased awareness. Societal safety is thus a perpetual Sisyphus effort. It is a big challenge for all organizations to maintain a high level of safety awareness over time,” he added.
According to Lindoe and associate professor Ole Andreas Engen, it is common practice in the US to look for scapegoats, and pin the blame for accidents on them, instead of changing the systems.
In Norway, the parties are more likely to come together to find out how systems and routines may have contributed to an employee making a mistake.
The researcher sum up the lessons learned after the Gulf of Mexico disaster:
“The Deepwater Horizon accident has uncovered some evident weaknesses within US safety regulation. The Government being restrained from intervening directly with the industry is one of them.
“To the Norwegian industry, this accident and the near-accident on Gullfaks C, should serve as reminders of the importance of maintaining the foundation pillars of the Norwegian safety management system: Effective and well qualified authorities, and clear guidelines for cooperation and trust between the parties,” Lindoe concluded.
Read more: http://www.andhranews.net/Technology/2011/Lessons-Gulf-Oil-spill-taught-us-173.htm?utm_campaign=30+topix+bp+oil+spill+gulf+of+mexico+%23oilspill&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=SNS.analytics#ixzz1ARz2xvy0
http://www.andhranews.net/Technology/2011/Lessons-Gulf-Oil-spill-taught-us-173.htm?utm_campaign=30+topix+bp+oil+spill+gulf+of+mexico+%23oilspill&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=SNS.analytics
Share this:
Like this: