Tag Archives: Chris Huhne

Whatever happened to Cameron, the idealistic young eco-warrior?

By Henricus Peters on | Leave a Comment
Department of Energy and Climate Change

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: David Cameron's picture on the 10 Dow...

English: David Cameron’s picture on the 10 Downing Street website (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After spending five years in opposition trying to detoxify the Tories’ image, David Cameron promised to lead ‘the greenest government ever’ when he entered No 10, exactly two years ago. Matt Chorley of The Independent on Sunday investigates what became of that pledge

David Cameron is today accused of doing no more than pay lip service to his boast that he would lead the “greenest government ever” and of leaving Britain vulnerable to the economic and environmental dangers of failing to tackle climate change.

On the second anniversary of his speech setting out his “simple ambition” for the coalition, the Prime Minister comes under fire from business leaders, eco-campaigners and politicians who warn that ministers’ anti-green rhetoric, policy U-turns and turbulent backbenchers are thwarting efforts to foster a low-carbon economy.

Samantha Smith, the environmentalist who took Mr Cameron to hug huskies in the Arctic to show a new Tory enthusiasm for the green agenda, leads the criticism. She claims the PM’s reluctance to lead the way threatens investment in renewable energy and undermines attempts to persuade developing countries to go green.

She told The Independent on Sunday: “This where we see whether David Cameron is a global leader or not. It is about being out in front, showing leadership and direction. We are not seeing enough of that.”

Her comments have been echoed by a diverse coalition, ranging from the CBI and renewable-energy firms to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and even Tory MPs.

From botched cuts to solar subsidies to the aborted forests sell-off, from a new rush for gas to subsidies for nuclear power, there is plenty in the coalition’s record that has raised doubts about the competency and commitment of ministers to the cause.

Repeated attacks by George Osborne on low-carbon policies – claiming “we’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business” – have been highlighted as a major cause of concern, with the Chancellor suggesting there is a choice between growth and being green.

The need for action remains acute. Last month, the International Energy Agency warned that energy-related CO2 emissions are on course to almost double by 2050, pushing global temperatures up by at least 6C. “Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships,” said its deputy executive director, Richard H Jones.

Last Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech was seen by some as a turning point for the coalition. The Energy Bill will aim to provide long-term certainty for investors in low-carbon power, by guaranteeing a steady rate of return. But critics warn it amounts to a subsidy for nuclear plants, something Lib Dems are vehemently opposed to. The heads of four of the country’s biggest environmental organisations – Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB and Friends of the Earth – have written to the Government warning against an “over-reliance on gas”, which could account for 70 per cent of generating capacity by 2020. The letter, seen by The IoS, calls for more support for renewable energy to “provide investors with long-term certainty”.

Ultra-green members of the Government would like more “aggressive” policies, including council tax and business rate discounts for properties that are more energy-efficient. But these are unlikely to get past sceptics who would see it as another “green tax”.

Earlier this month, Mr Cameron made his first public comment on the green agenda since becoming Prime Minister, though confusion over whether it was a “keynote speech” or simply “opening remarks” at a meeting of international energy ministers added to the sense that this is not a policy priority. A YouGov poll in March revealed that just 2 per cent of people thought he had kept his promise to lead the greenest government ever.

It is all a long way from the day in April 2006, when Mr Cameron burnished his green credentials by posing with huskies in Svalbard, declaring: “It is possible to take a lead and make a difference.”

Six years on, it is the absence of leadership that most worries environmentalists. Ms Smith, now leader of WWF’s global climate and energy initiative, revealed she was “impressed” by the Tory leader on the infamous dog-sled trip, but today is fearful of a lack of conviction. “We understood that part of it was about promoting the new greening of the Tory party, but it also seemed to us to be genuine, beyond some false commitment and a nod to climate change.” She warns that Mr Cameron must stand up to the “huge pushback” claims from climate-sceptic Tory MPs and Mr Osborne, who express doubts “on whether the UK can ‘afford’ to fulfil its obligations”.

There is a stark difference between being the “greenest ever” and the “greenest possible” government. Without a pro-green zeal at the very top of government, ambitious plans are unlikely to reach their potential. “It’s the difference between a policy that trundles along and one which is given some welly,” says one government source.

Like many, Tim Yeo, the Tory chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, warns that the Department of Energy and Climate Change looks like “a second-division Whitehall department” when up against the Treasury, which is institutionally suspicious of green policies. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs fares little better. Responsible for the countryside – and the infamous plan to sell off Britain’s forests – it is damned with faint praise even by its backers. “Defra’s heart is in the right place,” says one. “It just needs a bit more clout.” The Campaign to Protect Rural England fears Defra is “an isolated, and not especially influential, outpost”.

The loss of Chris Huhne, who resigned as Energy Secretary in February after being charged with perverting the course of justice, is a mixed blessing. A Lib Dem big beast, he regularly stood up to Tories in general and Mr Osborne in particular. But there is a growing school of thought in Westminster, too, that Mr Huhne’s spiky relationship with the Chancellor was counterproductive. Friends of Mr Osborne say his anti-green rhetoric while Mr Huhne was in the Cabinet was in part a way of putting up “two fingers” to the Lib Dems. Since the latter’s departure, his language has been tempered. “George has drawn a line under the antagonistic stuff now Chris has gone,” says one Tory minister. “Politics is based on people and relationships – shock!” adds another.

Observers say the jury is still out on Mr Huhne’s successor, Ed Davey. In his first interview after his appointment in March, Mr Davey told The IoS: “Let no one be under any illusion, I am completely committed to the ambition for this to be the greenest government ever.”

He might be committed. But there are real doubts about whether David Cameron’s priorities now lie far away from the glaciers of Svalbard.

Cameron’s Green ratings (are all over the place)

Leadership

David Cameron’s “greenest government ever” boast on 14 May 2010 was followed by almost two years of silence. George Osborne filled the void, claiming green regulations imposed a “ridiculous cost” on business. The loss of Chris Huhne as Energy Secretary leaves both the Lib Dems and the green lobby one big beast down. But William Hague boasts that the Foreign Office is “leading this charge with vigour” and Nick Clegg is to lead the UK delegation to the Rio Earth Summit.

Verdict Sometimes words speak louder than actions.

Economy

The low-carbon economy, employing one million people, has been growing by 4 per cent a year, despite the recession. The UK is ranked seventh in the world for investment in clean energy, which was $9.4bn in 2011 – up 35 per cent, from $7bn, on 2010. Business leaders dispute claims about the green “burden”, but want consistency to reassure investors. The £3bn Green Investment Bank, to fund low-carbon energy schemes, will start lending this year, though critics note it won’t be able to borrow until 2016 at the earliest.

Verdict Treasury blind to potential green shoots of growth.

Solar

Panicked by the high uptake of generous subsidies for people installing solar panels, the Government rushed to cut the payouts by half. The High Court blocked the move, which had triggered claims that manufacturers and installers would go bust, and set alarm bells ringing about ministers’ commitment and competence.

Verdict Cock-up, not conspiracy, but investors spooked.

Wind

More than 100 Tory MPs demanded cuts to subsidies for “inefficient and intermittent” onshore wind farms, but the PM responded there were “perfectly hard-headed reasons” to build more. There are plans for big expansion by 2020, pushing onshore turbine output up from 4.7GW to 13GW and offshore from 1.6GW to 18GW.

Verdict ”Bird shredders” or things of beauty, they are vital to green energy future.

Marine and tidal

Coalition pulled the plug on Severn Barrage, but has a target for 200MW to 300MW of marine capacity by 2020. However, a £20m fund is a drop in the ocean for a technology still in its infancy.

Verdict A lack of vision means the sector could sink.

Energy efficiency

The Green Deal, offering homes lagging, boilers and low-energy lights paid for through future savings on bills, is seriously ambitious – hoping to stimulate £14bn-worth of private funding – but it has real potential to go wrong and risks low take-up. Smart meters, giving live updates on energy use, rolled out by 2019.

Verdict Big, bold thinking but could be a damp squib.

Carbon emissions

The fourth carbon budget promises to halve carbon emissions, from 1990 levels, by 2025. The UK government is leading the argument in Europe to go for a 30 per cent cut in emissions by 2020, up from 20 per cent. Government departments cut emissions by 14 per cent in the coalition’s first year. Plans for a carbon capture and storage project in Fife, Scotland, were scrapped but a £1bn fund has been made available to help this burgeoning technology.

Verdict Ambitious targets require ambitious politicians.

Countryside

A plan to sell off half the Forestry Commission’s woodland was ditched after a campaign attracted 500,000 signatures. A planning shake-up sparked fears the countryside would be concreted over before a partial climbdown. An injection of £250m to reinstate weekly bin collections contradicts the recycling message. But a Defra review of habitat directives showed just 0.5 per cent caused major problems. There are plans to plant one million trees by 2015.

Verdict The rural champion risks trampling on its grassroots.

Oil and gas

A £3bn tax break in March to help oil firms to drill new deep wells off the north of Scotland dismayed campaigners, coming 12 months after a £2bn increase in tax on oil production. The requirement for power stations to be more efficient and less polluting is to be scrapped. Critics warn it will lead to a new dash for gas. Fracking – pumping water into shale rock to release gas – remains controversial, including fears it causes tremors.

Verdict No sign of ending our addiction to the black stuff.

Airports

The PM promised to scrap plans for a third runway at Heathrow, but the Chancellor is pushing for a U-turn, telling MPs the country must “confront airport capacity in the South-east”.

Verdict A U-turn after the 2015 election would retoxify the Tories.

The experts’ view

“Treasury noises-off are not helpful. A lot of this is work in progress but more signs are encouraging than discouraging.”

Tim Yeo, MP; Tory chairman, Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee

“The Government’s record is good in parts. They say the proof is in the pudding, well the pudding is still in the oven.”

Gordon Edge; Policy director, RenewableUK

“It’s more subtle than saying it’s all been terrible – but it’s more tragic, as well, because they have the bits of the jigsaw.”

Caroline Lucas, MP; Leader, Green Party

“The economic climate has made politicians less receptive to the green agenda, but the ‘environment vs growth’ argument is self-defeating. This Government can still be the greenest ever, but it needs to raise its game.”

Ben Stafford; Head of campaigns, Campaign to Protect Rural England

“The real issue is whether the ‘greenest government ever’ was a genuine aim, a sop to the Lib Dems, or a PR slogan.”

Joan Walley, MP; Labour chairwoman, Commons Environmental Audit Committee

“The Government has caved into fossil-fuel lobbyists and green-lighted a risky increase in our dependence upon imported, polluting gas.”

Joss Garman; Senior campaigner, Greenpeace

“The chopping and changing of green policies has been damaging to business confidence. The Government must ensure it has a clear message.”

Rhian Kelly; Director for business environment, CBI

“We need to ensure more advanced engineering and manufacturing to create the solutions that will be essential to meeting our climate-change goals.”

Greg Barker, MP; Climate Change minister

“David Cameron’s pledge to vote blue and go green was nothing more than a con, designed to trick people into thinking the Tories had changed.”

Caroline Flint, MP; Labour climate change spokeswoman

“The ‘greenest government ever’ aspiration was hardly setting the bar high, so it’s a let-down to see the Government struggle to rise to that standard.”

David Nussbaum; Chief executive, WWF-UK

Source : http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/whatever-happened-to-cameron-the-idealistic-young-ecowarrior-7742344.html

Related articles
Posted in: Climate change, David Cameron, United Kingdom | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Durban climate talks see US back EU proposal

By Henricus Peters on | 4 Comments
Collectively, the EU is the largest contributo...

Image via Wikipedia

The prospects of a last-minute deal on climate change have emerged at the UN talks in Durban, as the US threw its weight behind the European Union’s proposal for a roadmap towards a new global agreement.

All eyes are now on China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, which has yet to back the proposal, and according to some insiders has been giving conflicting signals.

Other big developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa have said they are willing to discuss the proposed programme, though India has rejected it.

With only a day and a half of negotiating time left to run, the words of support from the US on Thursday came as a surprise to the conference. Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, told a press conference: “The EU has called for a roadmap. We support that.”

According to the proposal, negotiations should begin soon on a potential new global agreement by which all the world’s major emitters – both developed and developing countries – would make commitments to cut emissions, starting from 2020. Although the EU wants to set a firm date of 2015 for signing up to such an agreement, the US is reluctant to agree to specific dates yet but wants negotiations to start “promptly”.

Connie Hedegaard, Europe‘s climate commissioner, said: “It is very encouraging that the EU’s roadmap is the focus of the intense negotiations here in Durban.”

The EU also wants that new agreement to be legally binding at a global level – that is, a full international treaty – but the US has not agreed to that, though it left the door open. Stern said: “If we get the kind of roadmap that countries have called for – the EU has called for, that the US supports – for preparing for and negotiating a future regime, whether it ends up being legally binding or not, we don’t know yet, but we are strongly committed to a promptly starting process to move forward on that.”

US officials insisted that Stern’s position had not changed, as he has consistently said he would be open to discussions that could lead to a new accord that could be legally binding, or not. But until now he had not expressed clear support and had avoided the word “roadmap”, a term the US tends to dislike because it implies a fixed route and destination.

The US also insists that the agreement be equally legally binding on all major emitters – that is, if the US and the EU take on legal commitments, so must China. It is still far from certain that China will acquiesce, though its head of delegation told journalists in the week that China was willing to sign up to “a legal document”.

Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, said: “The key point is that if China sees a way to making a big step forward in living up to its international responsibilities then I think we will see similar commitments right the way across key players, including the US.”

Other countries at the talks are also swinging behind the EU plan, with the Alliance of Small Island States broadly in favour but with important reservations, and many African countries behind it.

Among developed countries, Japan has said it also wants negotiations on a new legally binding treaty to begin, though it has not indicated a firm timeline. Australia said it would sign up if major emitters did, while Canada, however, may still hold out.

In return for support for a treaty to begin to “bite” in 2020, the EU is offering to extend the Kyoto protocol – the only existing global legally binding treaty stipulating emissions cuts – beyond the current commitment period which ends in 2012. It is the only major rich country bloc to do so.

The issue of whether an agreement is legally binding is a crucial one at the talks. Many countries are saying that any agreement take the form of a fully articulated international treaty because they fear that some will otherwisse renege on their commitments.

The EU has pegged 2020 as the “latest” start date for any new climate agreement, because most of the world’s countries – including all the biggest emitters, both developed and developing – already have national commitments running to 2020, under deals struck in Copenhagen in 2009 and last year in Cancún.

Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/08/durban-climate-talks-us-backs-europe

Related articles
Posted in: Climate change conference | Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Climate change : Chris Huhne: a new global treaty is not a luxury

By Henricus Peters on | 1 Comment
UNEP logo.

Image via Wikipedia

Chris Huhne robustly defended the need for a new global treaty on climate change on Thursday, in an attack on governments and advisors who want to opt for a weaker commitment that would not be legally binding. The Guardian reports. Follow http://twitter.com/#!/LearnFromNature

 

But he admitted it could be the end of the decade before such a treaty would come into force, a deadline that many scientists and green campaigners view as too lax if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.

 

Speaking days ahead of next week’s Durban climate change conference, Huhne said the UK was showing “leadership” in insisting on new treaty, rather than the “bottom-up” approach favoured by some, under which individual countries and industries would set their own greenhouse gas targets.

 

Citing research showing that a majority of large global businesses were in favour of a deal, Huhne told an audience at Imperial College London: “A global deal covering all major economies is not a luxury. It is not an optional extra. It is an absolute necessity.”

 

He said a new treaty should be negotiated by the end of 2015, though he added: “If we can get it by 2014, that would be great, and 2016 is doable.”

 

However, Huhne admitted that even if a treaty was negotiated in 2015, it would be several years before it could come into force. The UK, in common with several other developed countries, has set 2020 as the deadline, as the Guardian revealed earlier this week. Huhne said: “This [treaty] has to be biting on the problem by 2020.”

 

An official pointed out that the EU Council had agreed in October to aim for 2020 as the date by which all parties would comply with a new treaty.

 

But this timetable is now a key issue at the talks. Tim Gore of Oxfam said: “Any new agreement that builds on the foundation of the Kyoto Protocol must ensure new emission reductions targets that go beyond the current pledges, and critically, that apply before – not after – 2020. After that it’ll be too late for the 2C target governments have set.”

 

The UN’s environment chief took the unusual step of attacking the move in strong terms this week. Achim Steiner, deputy director-general of the UN and executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said: “Those countries that are currently talking about deferring an agreement [to come into force] in 2020 are essentially saying we are taking you from high risk to very high risk in terms of the effects of global warming. This is a choice – a political choice.”

 

The UK government‘s contention is that if countries know a new agreement is due in 2020, they will need to take strong action on reducing emissions before then in order to meet their new commitments. This should, according to the official view, ensure that emissions peak by 2020, which is the outer limit of what scientists have advised if the world is to stay below 2C of warming, beyond which global warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible.

 

However, this depends not only on a new agreement being signed in 2015-16, but on countries agreeing to toughen their emissions targets in line with scientific advice. UNEP showed this week that there remains a large gap between the emissions cuts pledged and those that are required.

 

Bill Hare, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: “Justifying as ‘realistic’ a delay to 2020 in getting this agreement operational is to excuse a more or less complete failure. The reality is that the big emitters are not wanting to move on this or on increasing the ambition levels set for 2020.

 

“Scientifically it is clear that the 2020 targets are inadequate and as the IEA has indicated a failure to increase the level of action could lock out the possibility of limiting warming to 2C. This is the real consequence of a delay until 2020 which the big emitters seem not to want to face up to.”

 

UNEP’s chief scientist, Joseph Alcamo, said: “Every year it becomes more difficult to keep within 2C.

 

“Every year, we build more power plants. Every year, we build more buildings that are not efficient. Every year, our options [to avoid climate change] get less and less.”

 

At the two-week Durban meeting, countries are expected to make progress on details of the negotiations, such as the green climate fund to help developing countries cut emissions and cope with the effects of climate change. Huhne announced the UK was planning a “package for Africa” that would help some of the poorest countries with crucial financing.

Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/chris-huhne-global-climate-treaty

Related articles
Posted in: Climate change | Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Oil Update : BP faces challenge to Shetland drilling

By Henricus Peters on | Leave a Comment
Looking along the beach and machair of the spi...

Image via Wikipedia

Map showing the Hebrides: Orkney and Shetland,...

Image via Wikipedia

Pobull Fhinn, North Uist
Image by cole007 via Flickr

BP’s “public consultation” over its plan for a controversial deepwater oil well off the coast of Shetland, closed this month, has been reopened by Chris Huhne, for further comments.

 

The consultation exercise about the proposed North Uist exploratory well attracted no responses from the public, and angered environmental groups who said they did not know of its existence.

Leaders of Greenpeace, the RSPB, WWF and Friends of the Earth wrote to Mr Huhne, the Energy and Environment Secretary, complaining they had not been made aware of it, and raising concerns about the difficulty of coping with a deepwater oil leak in the hostile conditions of the Atlantic.

Now Mr Huhne, who will decide whether the well should go ahead, has told the green groups that his officials will consider any further representations about North Uist until the end of this month.

The Independent disclosed two weeks ago that BP’s own worst-case scenario for a spill from the well, to be drilled at 1,290 metres (4,230ft) below the surface, would involve oil leaking at 75,000 barrels a day for 140 days. That would constitute the worst oil spill in history and one more than twice the size of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico last year which brought the oil giant to the brink of collapse.

The well, in a seabed block named after the Hebridean island of North Uist but located 80 miles north-west of Shetland, is part of BP’s continuing attempt to open up the West of Shetland sea area, sometimes referred to as the “Atlantic Frontier”.

The concern of environmentalists is that a spill from a deepwater well in the extreme sea conditions in the area might be very difficult if not impossible to contain. In particular, they are worried about the Shetland islands, which BP says “may be affected” in the event of a spill – and where a million seabirds breed every summer.

BP says that a new well-capping device, developed under the auspices of the Oil Spill Response and Advisory Group is available, and can be used at depths of up to 10,000ft.

In his letter to the green groups, Mr Huhne says that the cap “would not be deployable in weather conditions where the sea state or swell exceeded five metres.”

However, he says: “It is unlikely that drilling would be conducted in such conditions.”

Related articles
Posted in: Oilspill | Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Climate change will increase threat of war…

By Henricus Peters on | 3 Comments
Chris Huhne, environment spokesman of the Libe...

Image via Wikipedia

Chris Huhne, UK climate secretary to tell defence experts that conflict caused by climate change risks reversing the progress of civilisation. From The Guardian

Climate change will lead to an increased threat of wars, violence and military action against the UK, and risks reversing the progress of civilisation, the energy and climate secretary Chris Huhne will say on Thursday, in his strongest warning yet that the lack of progress on greenhouse gas emission cuts would damage the UK’s national interests.

“Climate change is a threat multiplier. It will make unstable states more unstable, poor nations poorer, inequality more pronounced, and conflict more likely,” Huhne is expected to say in a speech to defence experts. “And the areas of most geopolitical risk are also most at risk of climate change.”

He will warn that climate change risks reversing the progress made in prosperity and democracy since the industrial revolution, arguing that the results of global warming could lead to a return to a “Hobbesian” world in which life is “nasty, brutish and short”.

Huhne believes the UK and other countries must act urgently to prepare for the threat. “We cannot be 100% sure that our enemies will attack our country, but we do not hesitate to prepare for the eventuality,” he plans to say. “The same principle applies to climate change, which a report published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has identified as one of the four critical issues that will affect everyone on the planet over the next 30 years.”

His comparison of climate change and terrorism echoes Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the government who warned in 2004 that global warning posed “a bigger threat than terrorism”. The warning so incensed the then US president George W Bush that he phoned Tony Blair to ask him to gag the scientist.

Huhne argues that it is clearly in the UK’s national interest to cut carbon dioxide emissions sharply, and persuade other nations to join in the effort.

His speech comes at a delicate time for the prime minister, David Cameron, who was embarrassed earlier in the week by an open revolt over climate issues staged by his members of the European parliament. MEPs were voting on whether to adopt more ambitious emissions reduction targets that would raise the goal from a 20% cut in carbon by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, to a tougher 30% cut.

Despite Downing St intervention, more than two-thirds of Tory MEPs rebelled against the party line, to support the tougher target. Their revolt was instrumental in defeating the proposal, part of a complex series of votes in the parliament.

Green campaigners hope to revive the issue in future votes, and with member states and the European commission, but the vote revealed the depths of climate scepticism within the Tory party.

Huhne has scored key victories in recent months in his attempts to put climate change at the centre of coalition policy. He helped to persuade Cameron to accept the “fourth carbon budget” - a plan that would see the UK halve emissions by 2025, the stiffest target of any developed country. Yesterday the prime minister announced tough new energy efficiency standards, supported by Huhne, that would require central government to cut emissions by 25% in the five-year term of this parliament.

Huhne will quote military experts, including the MoD and the US Pentagon, who have warned that climate change will increase the risk of conflict and potentially terrorism. Climate change intensifies security threats in three ways: increasing competition for resources; more natural and humanitarian disasters, such as the droughts now causing famine in Africa, which will also lead to mass migration and the conflicts that ensue; and threats to the security of energy supplies.

Related articles
Posted in: Education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,743 other followers

%d bloggers like this: