Government | News & Views

New UK Government Signs-up to 10:10

10:10’s Duncan Clark reports on the government’s committment to cut 10% of its emissions over the next 12 months. To find out more <click here>

It’s been an amazing few days: on Wednesday, the 10:10 team were thrilled when the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition announced a commitment to reduce the entire carbon footprint of central government by 10% in a year. The pledge confirmed that both parties’ earlier manifesto pledges to do 10:10 had made it through the thorny negotiation process.

Then, yesterday evening, just as 10:10 were hosting one of their fortnightly 10:10 seminars, the phone rang. It was 10 Downing Street, inviting us down to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) this morning to meet prime minister David Cameron, along with the new secretary for energy and climate change, Chris Huhne.

The government’s 10% announcement – equivalent to taking 200,000 cars off the road – is a monumental victory for 10:10 and testament to how far the campaign has come in the eight short months since its launch.

Best of all, when the 10:10 team interviewed him, Chris Huhne agreed to come to 10:10 HQ to give a seminar and discuss their plans – which include everything from a fridge scrappage scheme to turning off the lights overnight in some of the country’s biggest landmark buildings, as well as the biggest ever day of climate change action on 10/10/10.

Japanese whale meat ‘being sold in US and Korea’

Scientists say they have found clear proof that meat from whales captured under Japan’s whaling programme is being sold in US and Korean eateries.

The researchers say they used genetic fingerprinting to identify meat taken from a Los Angeles restaurant as coming from a sei whale sold in Japan.

They say the discovery proves that an illegal trade in protected species still exists.

Whale meat was also allegedly found at an unnamed Seoul sushi restaurant.

Commercial whaling has been frozen by an international moratorium since 1986.

But a controversial exemption allows Japan to kill several hundred whales each year for what is termed scientific research.

The meat from these whales is then sold to the public in shops and restaurants in that country.

Criminal proceedings

A team of scientists, film-makers and environmental advocates say they collected samples of whale meat being sold in sushi restaurants in both the US and South Korea late last year.

A genetic analysis of meat found in Los Angeles showed that it was identical to meat from a sei whale being sold in Japan in 2007. This species is said by environmentalists to be in danger of extinction.

Criminal proceedings have started against the Los Angeles restaurant caught selling the whale meat.

It has now closed but its chef and owners face heavy penalties.

Writing in the Royal Society journal, Biology Letters, the researchers involved say that trading in this meat is banned between countries that have signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

The researchers also visited an unnamed restaurant in the South Korean capital Seoul where they say they purchased 13 whale products on two occasions in June and September 2009.

Four came from an Antarctic minke whale, four from a sei whale, three from a North Pacific minke, one from a fin whale and one was from a Risso’s dolphin, the researchers say.

The DNA profile of the fin whale meat genetically matched meat that had been bought in Japanese markets in 2007, they report.

They argue that Japan should be required to make public a register of the DNA of all the whales it catches so that illegally traded meat can be tracked.

>>> Please read the full article here

How big will the carbon footprint of party leaders be during the election?

By Leo Hickman from the Guardian

We’ll never know for sure. It’s the only honest answer I can give for the simple reason that the three main parties won’t supply the necessary information to make such a calculation. Are they hiding something? Or do they just not care? It’s hard to say, but given how low down they have all placed the environment on their lists of manifesto priorities I would tend to favour the latter.

Personally, I think they are right to make an effort to travel to each and every corner of the land to press the flesh. It’s a quintessential part of a leader’s role during a general election campaign. Given the great distances required to hop around the regions during a long campaign it’s no surprise that the leaders have to take – volcanoes permitting – some flights between hustings. It would be nice, though, given their sporadic soundings on the environment, to see them at least make the gesture of saying that they will only take a flight when no other option is practicable.

However, we do have a good sense of the sorts of journeys the leaders of the three main parties have been making since the election began in earnest following the dissolution of parliament on April 6. Thanks to the on-going efforts of my colleagues Paul Torpey and Emma Sax, we can now view a Google Map of the leaders’ travels. What’s visually striking is how many of the visits have centred on or around the M1 corridor between London and the urban centres of the north-west. (Given that’s where the bulk of the population lives, this isn’t too surprising, but let’s hope they visit the rural fringes, too.) The odd flight to Scotland apart, all of these journeys to date are eminently achievable by train if, as we must assume, the leaders are leaving and returning to London each day.

Such journeys are dwarfed, though, by the epic distances put in by the US presidential candidates every four years. With some three thousand miles between the coasts (not including the occasional trip to Hawaii and Alaska), McCain and Obama each clocked up colossal mileage during their respective campaigns in 2008. Again, figures are hard to come by, but a US carbon offsetting firm called Carbon Standard did do the math that year.

It calculated the carbon footprint (PDF) of the whole “ground game”, as they say in America, of each presidential candidate’s campaign. That’s to say, the individual footprints of not just McCain and Obama, but all their campaign staff, too. But they had to base their calculations on campaign expenditure as opposed to odometer readings. It concluded that Obama’s travel-related carbon footprint was 39,178 tonnes of CO2, compared to McCain’s 26,499 tonnes. To put that into some kind of perspective, Carbon Standard said this would equate to Obama needing to plant 911,325 trees to stultify his emissions, and McCain would have to plant 616,395 trees. If you consider that there an estimated 500,000 trees in New York City it helps to give an extra sense of scale.

>>> Please read the full article here

Green policy: We need a seismic shift in thinking

Andy Atkins

The massive disruption to European air travel from the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland is a stark reminder of the massive force of nature – and the powerlessness of our actions when we feel its full might.

It’s a timely reminder of the urgent need to heed warnings from the world’s leading climate scientists about the huge threat we face unless we slash greenhouse gas emissions and tackle global warming.

But despite widespread agreement among the main political parties that climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face, the issue has taken a back seat since Gordon Brown blew the general election whistle earlier this month.

Before the economic crisis took hold, all the main parties seemed to grasp the importance of making climate change a major issue.

David Cameron kicked off his party leadership by making the environment a leading priority, urging people to “vote blue, go green” in the runup to the 2006 council elections.

Nick Clegg told a 2008 climate rally that some were saying: “In a recession we can’t afford the luxury to worry about the planet … they are wrong, you are right.”

And at last year’s Copenhagen climate talks, Gordon Brown warned of the “economic catastrophe equivalent in this century to the impact of two world wars and the great depression in the last.”

Cross-party support in the last parliament led to the passing of the historic Climate Change Act. Championed by Friends of the Earth, this was the first national legislation anywhere in the world to set legally binding targets for cutting emissions.

All three parties have sizeable sections devoted to the environment in their manifestos, and these are certainly stronger and bolder than last time round. But none of them fully grasps the size of the environmental challenge we face.

There is little to choose between Labour and Conservative electoral pledges.

Perhaps most deplorable is the fact that neither includes a commitment to delivering the 42% reduction in greenhouse gases that the government’s key advisors – the committee on climate change – say is required by 2020. Labour hinted at it, but only if various international conditions are met, while the Conservatives don’t even have a 2020 target.

Labour are strong on making our homes more energy efficient, promising to improve 7 million homes through tougher standards for rented housing and a loans scheme for homeowners, with the aim that all lofts and cavity walls will be insulated by 2015. However, these laudable intentions are undermined by promises to widen motorways and build more runways.

A lack of detail permeates Conservative plans. How much money will its Green Investment Bank have? How big an impact will green government procurement plans have on the markets for eco products? And what emission standards will be set for new power stations? The promise to scrap airport expansion plans is welcome.

The Liberal Democrats have been most impressive – second only to the Green Party – in putting green issues at the heart of their policy proposals by including them on most pages and in every section of their manifesto.

The next UK parliament will be critical if the UK is to play its part in reducing emissions and seizing the enormous economic opportunities of developing a low-carbon future, which could deliver hundreds of thousands of new green jobs and business opportunities.

Strong leadership will be required from whichever party wins the election to ensure that the UK plays a fair role in tackling global warming. And this will be so much easier if they are supported by the other parties too. Climate change is too important to be a political football.

The starting point for the next government must be a far stronger target for cutting UK emissions – without buying carbon offsets from abroad.

Local carbon budgets should also be introduced for every local council. They have a crucial role to play in meeting our climate goals. And we need a new law to tackle the significant greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock – which will also support better UK farming and domestic feed production.

And the next UK government must also play a prominent role in pushing for a strong and fair international agreement on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a clean, green way.

Aviation emissions have been reduced by the Icelandic volcano , but it’s also brought chaos, misery and frustration to tens of thousands of people. Cutting emissions and tackling climate change is essential – but this must be achieved through bold strategies, not volcanic activity.

It’s a seismic shift in political thinking that we desperately need.

>>> Please read the full article here

Scotland launches zero waste campaign

The Scottish government has launched a new campaign encouraging households to recycle more of their waste.

Its new report into recycling rates in Scotland has shown that 67 percent of newspapers and magazines and 60 percent of glass is being reused.

However, Scottish households are still throwing around 260 kilograms of recyclable waste away each year.

The Zero Waste campaign will aim to tackle this by educating consumers about the materials they can recycle and where.

It will feature television, radio and outdoor advertisements, as well as a nationwide road show featuring the campaign’s mascot – a ten-foot tall blue elephant.

Scottish environment secretary Richard Lochhead said: “We should all constantly challenge ourselves to recycle more items, more often.

“Most waste sent to landfill should be viewed as a resource and put to good use,” he remarked.

The Zero Waste report shows that overall recycling rates in Scotland have increased from five percent of household waste ten years ago to almost 36 percent today.

>>> Please read the full article here

Japanese whale meat ‘being sold in US and Korea’

Scientists say they have found clear proof that meat from whales captured under Japan’s whaling programme is being sold in US and Korean eateries.

The researchers say they used genetic fingerprinting to identify meat taken from a Los Angeles restaurant as coming from a sei whale sold in Japan.

They say the discovery proves that an illegal trade in protected species still exists.

Whale meat was also allegedly found at an unnamed Seoul sushi restaurant.

Commercial whaling has been frozen by an international moratorium since 1986.

But a controversial exemption allows Japan to kill several hundred whales each year for what is termed scientific research.

The meat from these whales is then sold to the public in shops and restaurants in that country.

Criminal proceedings

A team of scientists, film-makers and environmental advocates say they collected samples of whale meat being sold in sushi restaurants in both the US and South Korea late last year.

Criminal proceedings have started against the Los Angeles restaurant caught selling the whale meat.

It has now closed but its chef and owners face heavy penalties.

The researchers also visited an unnamed restaurant in the South Korean capital Seoul where they say they purchased 13 whale products on two occasions in June and September 2009.

Four came from an Antarctic minke whale, four from a sei whale, three from a North Pacific minke, one from a fin whale and one was from a Risso’s dolphin, the researchers say.

The DNA profile of the fin whale meat genetically matched meat that had been bought in Japanese markets in 2007, they report.

They argue that Japan should be required to make public a register of the DNA of all the whales it catches so that illegally traded meat can be tracked.

>>> Please read the full article here

Hollywood stars join politicians at Bolivia’s ‘cool’ global warming summit

Evo Morales says talks will give a voice to world’s poorest and encourage governments to be ambitious after Copenhagen

Hollywood stars join politicians at Bolivia’s ‘cool’ global warming summit

Evo Morales says talks will give a voice to world’s poorest and encourage governments to be ambitious after Copenhagen

John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 April 2010 17.03 BST

In what is becoming the hippest environment meeting of the year, presidents, politicians, intellectuals, scientists and Hollywood stars will join more than 15,000 indigenous people and thousands of grass roots groups from more than 100 countries to debate climate change in one of the world’s poorest nations.

The World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth which opens next week in the small Bolivian town of Cochabamba, will have no direct bearing on the UN climate talks being conducted by 192 governments. But Bolivian President Evo Morales says it will give a voice to the poorest people of the world and encourage governments to be far more ambitious following the failure of the Copenhagen summit.

Morales will use the meeting to announce the world’s largest referendum, with up to 2 billion people being asked to vote on ways out of the climate crisis. Bolivia also wants to create a UN charter of rights and to draft an action plan to set up an international climate justice tribunal.

“The only way to get climate negotiations back on track not just for Bolivia or other countries, but for all of life, biodiversity, our Mother Earth is to put civil society back into the process. The only thing that can save mankind from a [climate] tragedy is the exercise of global democracy,” said Bolivia’s United Nations Ambassador Pablo Solon in Bonn, at the end of the latest UN talks.

“There will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. The debate and the proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals from civil society dedicated to tackling the climate crisis,” he said.

More than 90 governments are sending delegations to Cochabamba, Bolivia’s third largest city. Also expected to attend are scientists such as James Hansen, James Cameron, the director of Avatar, the linguist Noam Chomsky, author Naomi Klein of Canada, anti-globalisation activist José Bové of France, and actors Danny Glover, Robert Redford and Susan Sarandon are expected.

The meeting will coincide with celebrations of the Cochabamba “water war” of 2000 when a revolt against the privatisation of water in the city acted as an inspiration for social movements across Latin America and indirectly to the election of Morales as Bolivia’s president.

“We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don’t expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn’t happen in Copenhagen,” said Solón.

>>> Please read the full article at the guardian, here

Labour outlines green plans

Labour has outlined its green pledges in its 2010 election manifesto, including a commitment to generate 40 percent of the UK’s electricity from low-carbon sources by 2020.

The party said it wanted to make greener living easier and fairer through schemes such as pay-as-you-save home energy insulation, discounts in energy bills for pensioners and requirements for landlords to insulate rented homes.

It also outlined plans to introduce smart meters in all homes by 2020, bring in recycling-on-the-go schemes with separate public bins in streets and shopping centres and ban recyclable and biodegradable materials from landfill.

In addition, the party said it would sustain the Green Belt and ensure that 60 percent of new development is sited on brownfield land, while also extending the Right to Roam to the whole English coastline.

The publication of the manifesto comes after the government introduced new feed-in tariffs for individuals and businesses generating their own low-carbon electricity.

>>> Please read the full article here

UK to become world leader in renewable energy

Environment secretary Hilary Benn has published a new paper to advance Britain as a future “world leader” in renewable energy.

The report aims to help businesses, local authorities, farmers and food producers to turn organic waste into biogas for heat, power and transport fuel through grants and financial incentives.

This comes as the number of anaerobic digestion plants has risen from three to ten in three years, with more being built.

Supporting the technology, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to introduce a £10 million programme of demonstration sites across the country, an online advice portal for businesses and a research facility for UK companies.

Speaking on the launch of the paper, Mr Benn commented: “I’ve already seen great examples of this technology in use around the country and the Implementation Plan we are publishing today will help speed up its use across the economy.

“We should aim to become world leaders in the innovative use of [anaerobic digestion].”

>>> Please read the full article here

Hacked climate email inquiry cleared Jones but serious questions remain

By Fred Pearce, Guardian.

Gaunt, beta-blocked and stood down from duty, Phil Jones is the fall guy for the wider failings that triggered the hacked climate email scandals. But at its hearings into the affair a month ago, the Commons science committee was kind to the director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), but short-tempered with his grinning sidekick, the University of East Anglia’s vice-chancellor Edward Acton.

And so, in their report, Jones gets the benefit of a few doubts. At their final drafting meeting last week, only the MPs’ in-house cryptosceptic, Graham Stringer, voted against a sentence saying that, on the evidence they had, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”.

Instead, the university administration gets chastised for presiding over a culture of secrecy and possible illegality within the CRU that led to a public relations meltdown.

The MPs are clear that there are serious issues to address both in climate science and in the operation of freedom of information law in British universities. But in their desire not to single out Jones, they end up bending over backwards to support a man who is the pillar of the establishment they are criticising.

Of course, it must have been “frustrating” for Jones to handle freedom of information requests from people “he knew – or perceived – were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work”. But, as the MPs say, his “blunt refusals to share data, even unrestricted data” led to “unfortunate email exchanges” and was “inevitably counterproductive”.

The MPs are right to absolve Jones of many of the crimes of which bloggers have accused him. The allegations surrounding his “tricks” and efforts to “hide the decline” are largely malicious inventions.

But, in their rush to judgment before parliament is dissolved for the general election, Phil Willis and his team avoided examining more complex charges, including those raised by the Guardian in its investigations in February.

Even so, they sometimes get confused. The MPs accept Jones’s claim that CRU’s habit of keeping secret much of its data, methodology and computer codes was “standard practice” among climate scientists. Yet they also note that Nasa scientists doing similar work are much more open. Not so standard, then.

And whatever standard practice may be, surely as one of climate science’s senior figures, Jones should take some responsibility for its misdemeanours? Jones has worked for the CRU for more than 20 years and been its director for six. The MPs found there a “culture of withholding information” in which “information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure.” It found this “unacceptable”. Doesn’t its director take responsibility?

The MPs kept their criticism for the university. Its “failure to grasp fully the potential damage [from] non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable”.

Also possibly illegal, it might have added.

UEA is rightly in deep doo-doo. The MPs find that its information officers colluded with CRU to subvert legitimate freedom of information requests, and “found ways to support” the culture of secrecy. In a key statement that not even the proliferation of acronyms can disguise, they say: “We must put on record our concern about the manner in which UEA allowed CRU to handle FOIA requests.”

The wider research community also has questions to answer. “We recommend that all publicly funded research groups consider whether they are being as open as they can be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies,” the MPs say. That sounds like a good follow-up for the committee after the general election.

But apart from Acton, the person who will read this report with most gloom, may be Sir Muir Russell, the Scottish grandee appointed by Acton to review the activities of Jones and his colleagues.

The MPs agree with the sceptic Lord Lawson, who gave evidence, that Russell’s inquiry should conduct his interviews and hearings “in public wherever possible”. Unless Russell has spoken to nobody in the past four months, he evidently is not doing that. They say his inquiry should “publish all written evidence on its website as soon as possible”. Yesterday, a month after the deadline for submissions closed, none had been posted.

Worse, the MPs have given him long list of things to investigate or rule on, such as deciding whether emails were deleted in breach of FOI law. Or coming up with rules for CRU on sharing data. And such as deciding whether Jones “subverted the peer-review process”. They also suggest that a test of how truly independent the Russell inquiry is will be whether it gives the UEA an advance copy. This story is far from over yet.

>>> Please read the full article here