Opinion polls predict that voters are set to back the left-wing Labour Party over the incumbent Conservative government by a significant margin, a BBC tracker shows.

Lammy told an event during London Climate Action Week that he supports the green reforms of the global financial system that have been proposed by the leaders of Kenya, Barbados and the World Bank.

Clare Shakya, climate lead at The Nature Conservancy, a green group, told Climate Home that Lammy’s comments were “massively ambitious” and “exactly what the world needs to hear right now”.

But promises on climate finance to developing countries in the Labour Party manifesto are the same as the ruling Conservative Party. Lammy argued that “all across the world, a cost-of-living crisis is making it hard to make the case solely for taxpayers’ funds” to support climate action in developing nations.

The Conservatives and Labour have both pledged to restore the overseas aid target from 0.5% to 0.7% of gross national income when “fiscal circumstances allow”. Both have committed to providing £11.6 billion ($14.7bn) in international climate finance between 2021 and 2026.

Claudio Angelo, international policy coordinator for Brazil’s Climate Observatory, commended Lammy “for being so vocal about the need for the UK to step up” on climate multilateralism.

But, he added, the Labour politician “doesn’t seem to offer anything new on climate finance and now, with four months left until COP29, we desperately need a breakthrough”.

IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down

At the COP29 climate summit in November, governments are due to agree on a new post-2025 goal for international climate finance. Developed and developing countries have been divided so far, with developing nations proposing targets of $1.1-$1.3 trillion a year but wealthy governments refusing to openly discuss figures until the issue of where the money will come from is addressed.

Outside the UN climate talks, a coalition led by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley – partly backed by the US, Germany and others – has been pushing for multilateral development banks to lend more money to green projects. Kenyan Prime Minister William Ruto has called for taxes on polluters to raise money for climate finance.

Lammy told a forum on climate politics, organised by think-tank E3G on Tuesday, that the global financial system’s rules “were set up in a different age, a different century – they don’t work today”. “We want to work with [World Bank president] Ajay Banga and others to bring about the changes that are required,” he added.

Angelo said he supports the need to shake up the system, but described Lammy’s references to reforming multilateral development banks while limiting public finance as “standard developed-country talking points”.

Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll

Asked about the Labour manifesto promise to “audit” its relationship with China, Lammy said Labour would “engage appropriately” with the world’s biggest emitter on key policy areas, adding “there is no more important issue in so many ways than the climate issue.”

He praised the EU, US and Australia for their efforts to talk with China, and said a Labour government would “cooperate with China when we can”. The previous day, he told the India Global Forum that he would also work with India on climate change.

Li Shuo, director of the China climate hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington DC, told Climate Home that “the UK has been quite self-absorbed and quickly disappeared from the list of interlocutors with Beijing since COP26 in Glasgow”.

“The desire to restart engagement is a welcome development,” he added. “This is particularly true if the US election goes south. Much of the rest of the world will need to hold the fort.”

On domestic energy policy, Lammy reiterated Labour’s pledge not to issue any new licences for oil and gas production in the North Sea.

The party’s manifesto outlines further national climate policies, including decarbonising electricity by 2030 – five years earlier than the current government’s plans – by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar and quadrupling offshore wind.

(Reporting by Daisy Clague and Joe Lo; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post UK’s Labour promises “solidarity” with poorer nations on climate – but no new cash appeared first on Climate Home News.

Citizens up and down the UK are heading to the polls on July 4 – and though it has yet to feature as a campaign priority for the major parties, climate policy is a clear dividing line between the two main parties: the Conservatives and Labour.  

While the Conservatives have diluted existing climate policies and pushed ahead with more oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, Labour have said they will halt new licensing in the North Sea and set up a new entity, GB Energy, to scale up clean generation and drive down bills.  

Given this dividing line, the upcoming election is set to see a clash between the forces of climate obstructionism – those organisations, individuals and media outlets that seek to delay, derail or discredit climate policy – and those that advocate for it.  

Right-wing pushback on EU’s green laws misjudges rural views

But climate obstructionism is not a new phenomenon within the UK. Ever since climate change was put on the agenda of UK politics by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a UN speech in 1989, there has been an orchestrated attempt to weaken and dilute measures to address global heating.  

The approach and strategies adopted by climate sceptic groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Institute of Economic Affairs and key allies in the right-wing media, such as the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, have shifted from disputing the science of climate change to exaggerating the economic costs of climate action and downplaying the benefits. 

Influencing public perceptions 

Our research shows that climate obstructionism in the UK is highly dynamic and constantly adapting to a rapidly changing policy environment by seeking to shape public perceptions of the feasibility and desirability of climate policies.   

Those working to increase policy ambition on climate change must confront climate obstructionism in the run-up to the UK general election and beyond it. Ahead of July 4, this is what to watch out for.  

With our colleagues Dr Ruth McKie of De Montfort University and Dr James Painter of the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, we identified the main channels through which climate obstructionism operates in the UK and the organisations that maintain it for a recent publication for the Climate Change Social Science Network (CSSN).  

Climate obstructionism is ever-present across the UK media. Traditional media outlets, like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, have persistently opposed climate policy, providing platforms for individuals with direct links to fossil fuel firms or organised sceptic groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation (now rebranded as Net Zero Watch) and giving voice to politicians who are part of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group.  

Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government

More recently these outlets have peddled misinformation around key green technologies, such as wind and solar farms, heat pumps and electric vehicles, while demonising the campaigns of climate activists and seeking to discredit their supporters. Newer media outlets, such as GB News, often give a platform to climate deniers or airtime to misinformation and then share clips across social media.  

As July 4 draws closer, these outlets will scrutinise the main parties’ climate policies. We can anticipate that Labour’s policies will be painted as a threat to national security, jobs and to households already facing a cost-of-living crisis.  

Some Conservatives and the Reform Party will be given an opportunity to dispute the urgency and necessity of climate policy, in particular net zero emissions, given the latter has called for a national referendum about whether to abandon the goal altogether. More often than not, these lines of attack of prospective policies will reflect obstructionist talking points, which overstate the costs of climate action, while ignoring the costs of inaction, and downplay the UK’s role in the climate crisis relative to other countries such as China.  

Fossil fuel lobbying 

Climate obstructionism in the UK is also maintained through the political power of the fossil fuel industry which makes recurring threats of job losses or to move its investments elsewhere to avoid stronger policy. These often land with politicians due to the perceived centrality of these companies to growth and prosperity.  

Party donations – from fossil fuel firms or those who benefit from their expansion – to individual politicians or political parties are pivotal for providing access and a say in determining the shape and scope of policy. In 2022, the Conservatives received £3.5 million in donations from those with direct links to fossil fuel production while Labour has also accepted donations from large polluters. Tightening the regulations around party donations, and making them more transparent, could help curtail climate obstructionism.  

Climate obstructionism is also advanced through institutional channels. There are a myriad of opportunities for fossil fuel interests to gain access or shape policy outcomes in the UK. All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are effective fora for obstructionist actors to lobby politicians and shape policy – often without breaking any rules.  

Access is also secured through an ever-revolving door between industry and government and the use of secondments. Since 2011, an estimated 127 former oil and gas employees have gone into top government roles. The next government could introduce ‘cool off’ periods for those leaving government and seeking to enter it from industry to address this issue. 

UN chief calls on governments to ban fossil fuel ads

As the urgency of addressing the climate crisis becomes starker with each passing week, and the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels becomes ever clearer, those that benefit from maintaining the status quo will step up their obstructionism.  

Delivering a just transition to a net zero economy not only requires citizens to be able to engage in an informed manner with proposals to address the climate crisis, it also requires that the democratic process is not compromised by those interests that want to prolong dependence on the fossil fuels driving the climate crisis.  

Whichever party wins on July 4, they will have a critical role to play in ensuring the UK does its fair share in addressing the climate crisis within a closing window to deliver effective action. We cannot afford to allow climate obstructionists to jeopardise this vital opportunity to change path and raise ambition. 

The post UK general election: Watch out for climate obstructionism   appeared first on Climate Home News.

In three vital and interrelated areas – climate, development and nature – the next UK government could play a significant role in driving progress at a critical time.

It needs to start office on day one with a plan that positions the UK ahead of key summits on those issues – summits that will have a critical bearing on people, planet, and future generations. The time to start preparing is now.

The NATO summit begins within days of the UK general election now planned for July 4. The year ends with G20 meetings in Brazil, a global biodiversity summit (COP16) in Colombia, and the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan. A new UK government could play an important role in rebuilding trust and make a positive contribution to the world by adopting far-sighted positions on climate, development and nature. 

On climate, the next government could immediately signal its intent by comprehensively stepping up its efforts to meet its own national climate commitments, after a period of drift and uncertainty. There is no more powerful message from the UK to the cause of global climate action than the country decisively implementing its own pledges, through concerted action on green energy, transport, infrastructure and land use.  

Progress at home needs to be matched in real time by leadership on the international stage in negotiating an appropriately ambitious and credible ‘new collective quantified goal’ on climate finance.

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

A strong finance outcome at COP29 would acknowledge the historic responsibility for climate change from some of the wealthiest nations, including the UK, while ensuring that all countries play their full part in mobilising the flows of public as well as private finance needed to transition to a 1.5 degree-aligned, resilient and nature-positive economy. Successful resolution of the finance negotiations this year in Baku would open up the possibility for a more ambitious round of climate action en route to COP30 in Belem, Brazil in November 2025. 

Development finance

On international development, the UK can move fast by upholding and restoring its development finance commitments, including to some of the world’s poorest people; by updating its toolkit to meet today’s interlinked development, climate and nature challenges; and by using all of the means at its disposal (including debt relief, multilateral development bank reform, and capital increases) to drive global financial architecture reform and a successful replenishment of the International Development Association 21 later this year.  

The UK can also lead the way in pressing for international support to be integrated and aligned behind countries’ own inclusive, green development plans; and by making the case for multilateral trade reform aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.  

In addition, the UK has a particular responsibility to resume a global leadership role on debt relief, a role it last played in the early 2000s during the era of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It could take legal and other action to unstick debt cancellation processes for some of the most indebted countries, by bringing private creditors to the table and brokering concerted action on debt relief at the G20.  

Global billionaires tax to fight climate change, hunger rises up political agenda

The UK should lend its political support to the Brazilian government’s laudable G20 initiative on tax reform, as well as its important work on climate and hunger; and support other promising efforts to raise revenue for development, such as levies on shipping and aviation. The next finance minister should consider the UK’s global role on these issues as being as centrally important to their legacy as issues of national economics; and ensure that the UK drives global progress on new flows of finance for climate and development, at the scale set out by economists Nick Stern and Vera Songwe in their 2022 report.   

Protect and restore nature

On nature, the UK should redouble its actions to protect and restore nature and biodiversity at home, including through pursuing more sustainable farming and land management. At the same time, the UK should use its influence and finance to drive global progress on the nature agenda, both in terrestrial ecosystems as well as the ocean. The goal here is to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and to mobilise major flows of public and private finance to support countries, local communities and Indigenous Peoples to protect their ecosystems.

At the UN biodiversity conference in Colombia in October, the UK could assume a critical role on the global stage by making the case for the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems as fundamental to human life, to addressing the climate crisis, and as one of the most effective forms of pro-poor development assistance.   

At a deeply troubling and fractured time in multilateral affairs, revitalised global leadership from the next UK government on climate, development and nature could make a very constructive contribution to securing the better, fairer, more sustainable and more peaceful world which is still within our grasp to secure.   

 Editor’s note: The latest BBC analysis of opinion polls ahead of the July 4 general election in the UK shows the opposition Labour Party with 45% of voter support, while the ruling Conservative Party trails with 24%.

The post Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government appeared first on Climate Home News.

None of the UK’s major political parties are serious about climate change, the country’s former top climate diplomat has said.

John Ashton acknowledged that the UK had some good legislation, all the political parties have failed to adequately meet the challenge with the necessary response he summarised as: “Must. Now. Can.”

“None of our big national parties is yet serious about climate change. It’s not that they don’t have policies, even some good ones,” he said at an event in London on Thursday, organised by Friends of the Earth.

“But they haven’t built a conversation with the country about what climate change means in relation to their values. What it means in the context of our history and our national character. What it means for the choices we now face, about where we are going and ultimately about who we think we are.”

Former top UK climate change diplomat John Ashton

Ashton said that part of the challenge was to bring climate issues into the mainstream.

“For many politicians, climate change is still in an awkward category marked ‘green’. They want the label but when the conversation turns to jobs and growth, it doesn’t always occur to them to mention it,” he said.

“That’s a pity because what happens on climate change will be determined by a political struggle that cannot be separated from the debate about jobs and growth. It’s a struggle that is now entering its decisive phase; a struggle between two incompatible ideas.

“This can be expressed in three words. Must. Now. Can.”

Fix the politics

The wide reaching speech covered the need to keep pressure on big emerging economies at the UN talks and criticism of “Treasury-led” back sliding on environmental policies.

Running through the speech was the theme that fixing the politics, will enable governments to then fix the climate, be that in Westminster or Washington.

“You can’t transform a country by stealth. It requires consent and in a democracy that means an explicit political choice. It requires mobilization and therefore a call to arms. It requires honesty about the burdens, and acceptance of measures to help those whose communities and livelihoods depend on the high carbon economy,” said Ashton.

“There is one thing we need that only politics can give us. Leadership.”

John Ashton’s Lift the Lid Speech, May 16, 2013

The post John Ashton: No UK political party serious about climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Simpsons’ Mr Burns, proprietor of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant once said: “A lifetime of working with nuclear power has left me with a healthy green glow… and left me as impotent as a Nevada boxing commissioner.”

Observing the UK nuclear debate can leave feeling a little green, not particularly healthy and impotent as far as the debate is concerned.

Name calling, accusations of bullying and favouritism, people not doing their homework and sinister best friends conspiring in the corridors.

Not a scene from the schoolyard but the UK nuclear debate encapsulated at a committee debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday night – whether it can still be termed a debate is also up for dispute.

The Electricity Market Reform bill has triggered this discussion and at its core there are four main topics: subsidies, climate change, safe storage and transparency.

The Sellafield nuclear power station is still at the centre of the UK nuclear debate in its new role as a waste processing plant. (Flickr/Newbeltane)

Subsidies

Projects can run over budget to the tune of billions and then there’s the cost of disposing the waste.

French energy company EDF has agreed to operate a new nuclear reactor at the Hinckley Point power station. It would generate low carbon energy at a time when we are told that the atmosphere can’t cope with any increase in CO2 concentrations.

EDF originally said it would not require a state subsidy for the project, but now says it does. And having originally said it would not support new nuclear if a subsidy was required, the government now says it does too.

Here’s how the subsidy works: The state will guarantee a fixed price per unit of electricity. If the wholesale price falls below that threshold, the government makes up the difference. It’s called a Contract for Difference (CfD),

Hergen Haye, head of new nuclear at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was in attendance at Tuesday’s debate and said that this is not a subsidy. He is confident the agreement would pass EU criteria that prevents anti-competitive state-aid to business.

This did not wash with Caroline Lucas, a Green party MP, who replied: “I can’t stand all this ducking and diving and frankly, treating us all like fools”,  adding that claims the CfD is not a subsidy undermine the wider nuclear debate.

When a representative of one of EDF’s rivals asked what the difference was between this arrangement and his company getting a top up on prices for its energy from wind farms he received short shrift.

“I think that was a mischievous question,” said EDF’s head of new nuclear policy Nigel Knee before comparing the CfD to a variable rate mortgage.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a subsidy is “a sum of money given to help keep the price of a product low”. Make of that what you will.

India is one of 13 countries planning new nuclear reactors (Source: Petr Pavlicek/IAEA)

Climate and carbon

The nuclear debate has split green groups. Some stick to the same anti-nuclear arguments of the 1970s (plus some new ones).

Others like Mark Lynas and George Monbiot place climate mitigation first, particularly in the context of improving technology and smarter decommissioning practices.

Lynas backs a “nuclear for base load, renewables for the rest” energy mix, while many environmental NGOs insist that renewables alone can do the job. The UK government is planning a mix that also includes gas.

The trouble is these important aspects are not really being analysed. The focus instead is on government ‘U’ turns and whether it is lining the pockets of a company owned by the French state.

There is much less discussion about whether nuclear is essential to limiting global emissions, and even less about the science and engineering that ultimately defines whether or not a plant is safe.

Safe storage

Would you really like to live above tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste? It’s a hard sell, and the UK desperately needs a safe place to keep spent nuclear matter.

This week a local council in Cumbria voted against plans to excavate huge caverns 1000m below the ground to store nuclear material.

This is a massive blow to the industry, whatever leading scientists may say.

“It is only a blip, and in the big picture the UK’s programme of managing radioactive waste safely will continue to look for volunteers,” said Prof Bill Lee, Co-Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London

“We can’t simply leave the waste in temporary container storage; it has to go into a proper disposal facility underground. That needs a combination of a community willing to host it and the right geology.”

Others are far less forgiving, accusing opponents of an awful crime – being a NIMBY.

“This is a short-termist, self-serving decision that does nothing to solve the legacy problems at Sellafield, and which will cost the country and locality much more cash in the long term,” said Dr Nick Evans , Senior Lecturer in Radiochemistry at Loughborough University.

Given that the site in question has the Heysham Nuclear Power station, the Sellafield Nuclear waste processing plant and a nuclear shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness all within a few miles this seems a little harsh, but it illustrates the problems governments face.

Transparency

The government and nuclear industry have an unfortunate record of covering up accidents. The true impacts of the 1957 Windscale disaster were kept from the public at the time, and even an official report was censored.

This week MPs voted on a proposed amendment to open the books on negotiations between energy firms and the government. It was defeated by the coalition government.

Here’s the take of Greenpeace chief scientist Dr Doug Parr: “The vote was particularly significant for Liberal Democrat MPs. The party has always opposed any public subsidy for Nuclear power. In practice this vote will mean they can’t find out what they don’t want to know,” he said.

“It is scandalous that these coalition MPs, who are there to hold Government and Secretaries of State to account, have handed over such wide powers and have actively voted to allow the government to keep the public paying up in ignorance.”

Greenpeace is historically opposed to nuclear, but the vote reinforces an atmosphere of distrust.

The public are also increasingly suspicious of energy firms as bills rise, even when wholesale prices fall. Confidence in politicians is also at a low and many feel the two are working together to fit the new Electricity Bill around the needs of the industry.

An odd couple

As I left the House of Commons on Tuesday night I overheard a fascinating exchange.

Gentleman in corridor: Hello, I’m XXX XXX from Horizon Nuclear Power (another much-maligned project eventually sold to Hitachi after Chinese buyers backed out)

Conservative MP: Oh, well I’m your man then. And off they went.

The MP in question has asked numerous question in parliament questioning renewable energy and supporting nuclear for the improvement of ‘energy security’.

The debate is back in the headlines, and sadly it has little to do with energy or the climate.

VIDEO: Homer Simpson designs a New Nuclear plant

The post Nothing new about the UK’s New Nuclear debate appeared first on Climate Home News.

Chris Huhne believes the green agenda could stall unless politicians remind the public of the dangers climate change poses to their quality of life.

Speaking to RTCC, the UK’s former Secretary of State for energy and climate change said it is vital the reasons for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are fully explained – otherwise governments risk losing support for moves to decarbonise their economies.

While events like Superstorm Sandy have reopened the climate debate in the USA, Huhne argues that hoping random weather events will change public opinion is not an effective or economically viable strategy.

“There is no doubt that events like the hurricane that hit the whole of the east coast are more likely and are more ferocious as a result of global warming, and therefore we need to wake up to these threats and understand what’s going on,” he said.

“Scientists can see that but every so often it’s important that the political class highlights that as well to their voters. We are not getting involved in putting wind turbines on hilltops all the way across the UK because we want to annoy the Women’s Institutes of sundry villages in rural Britain.

“We’re doing it because there is a genuine threat to our national life and civilisation which we need to meet, and I think we need to make that case.”

That case was made by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg last week in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, when he endorsed Barack Obama as US President, citing his support for tackling climate change.

Some estimate Hurricane Sandy could have cost the USA over $100 Billion

It was a significant intervention that did not necessarily reflect the facts on the ground – neither Obama nor his Republican challenger Mitt Romney have focused on climate change in the presidential race.

A particular problem is that backing green issues is seen by many critics as an assault on the economy, forcing regulations on industries and making them less competitive. These fears have been played on by the fossil fuel lobby in Washington, which provides substantial levels of funding to the Republican and Democrat parties.

This line of argument has seeped into British politics, and Huhne also talked of his “frustration” at the lack of focus on the economic benefits of green growth, arguing as he did while Secretary of State that the opportunities of a low-carbon economy outweigh the upfront costs.

And he says for the UN climate talks to see real progress at COP18 in Doha this case must be made in the developed and developing world.

“I find it quite frustrating that what I see as real opportunities for growth are being downplayed,” he said. “There is a terrible residual tendency to assume that all of these negotiations are a zero-sum game, when inevitably someone has to lose.

Related articles:

MPs call for UK to ‘eliminate’ fossil fuel subsidies at UN climate talks in Qatar

USA election 2012: Why Obama or Romney is a vote for 6°C

Pressure grows on Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol II

“If you get into that mindset things become much more difficult. In fact, as Nick Stern has admirably shown over many years there are substantial opportunities in tackling climate change and those economic opportunities are by no means there just for the rich countries.”

Whatever the economic case, if Romney wins the election the USA will have a climate sceptic President in the White House, which would effectively blow any hopes of a globally binding climate deal in 2015 out of the water.

Should Obama win and China remain committed to a low-carbon agenda, Huhne says he is confident that the foundations he helped lay in Durban last December will be built on, provided all sides demonstrate “genuine good faith”.

“This is the 11^th hour – we all have to step up to the plate”, he said. “There are always short term political reasons why there are problems in one year or the other – and we have to manage the process through those short term political problems.”

Support for science

Huhne remains optimistic that an Obama victory could see veteran climate campaigner John Kerry installed as Secretary of State – which would ensure the argument for action was made from the very top of government.

So far that voice has been lacking in the UK. Despite Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge in 2010 to lead the ‘Greenest Government’ ever he has yet to give a major speech focusing on the environment.

An increasingly vociferous section of his Conservative party have been calling for the green agenda to be slashed, claiming the science is dodgy and the costs are extravagant.

Huhne was involved in a number of fierce battles with this lobby while in office, and believes that while the sceptic movement enjoyed a resurgence during his own tenure in government, this will be temporary.

“The science is getting clearer and clearer, and is less amenable to genuine scepticism than was the case five years ago or ten years ago – we have to make that point,” he said.

“Policy has to be based on a rational assessment of what our opportunities and threats are. There is obviously a chance that all of the scientific conclusions that the IPCC and others have documented turn out to be wrong, but it would be total folly in my view given the likelihood they are right not to pay a relatively modest insurance premium to make sure we can deal with the issues – particularly when that insurance premium gives us economic opportunities moving forward.”

The post Huhne calls for greater political backing of climate action appeared first on Climate Home News.

UK government plans to reform the energy sector are lacking detail and could see the country miss its carbon emission targets, according to a report out today.

In a stinging critique of the draft energy bill, the influential Energy and Climate Change Committee says proposed objectives are ‘vacuous’, do not take into account current climate change targets, ignore the potential of energy efficiency measures and could hurt smaller renewable providers.

The report also suggests the bill in its current form could open the door to the construction of new high-emission fossil fuel power stations and could also encourage a new ‘dash for gas’.

AT A GLANCE: Key criticisms of UK draft energy bill

“Delivery according to timetable is crucial if we are to meet our climate change and renewables targets and retain security of supply for 2020,” the Committee said.

“We are extremely concerned that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) delivery timetable has already slipped, and that there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done to finalise the legislation.”

It added: “We believe that an explicit reference to the carbon budgets in the Bill, as well as making the Committee on Climate Change a statutory consultee on the delivery plan, would help to create greater certainty about the UK’s commitment to meeting its statutory obligations.”

The draft Energy Bill was published in May 2012 – proposing increasing state powers to intervene in the electricity market, and offering low carbon generators a fixed price for their energy.

Its stated aims are to: “Put in place measures to attract the £110 billion investment which is needed to replace current generating capacity and upgrade the grid by 2020, and to cope with a rising demand for electricity.”

A fifth of the UK’s fleet of fossil-fuelled and Nuclear power stations are likely to come out of service by 2020. Like many countries worldwide, the UK is facing the challenge of meeting increased levels of electricity demand cutting carbon emissions.

The 2008 Climate Change Act established a legally-binding target to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In June 2011 the government adopted a new carbon budget, agreeing a 50% reduction in emissions by 2025 relative to 1990 levels.

Two weeks ago Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey hailed the UK and the EU’s leadership in this sector, claiming it was critical for a binding global climate deal in 2015.

Squabbling departments

The report reserves particular criticism for the Treasury, accusing the department of deliberately ‘undermining’ their scrutiny process by refusing to take part in oral submissions.

It also raises concerns over the way departments within the UK government work together: “The perceived conflict between DECC and HM Treasury on some aspects of EMR is also contributing to uncertainty among the investor community.

“We sincerely hope that these two departments can in future develop a better working relationship than they have demonstrated to us during the course of our inquiry.”

Under current Chancellor George Osborne the Treasury appears to have become increasingly hostile to investment in renewable energy, and has insisted on capping a ‘levy’ on energy bills that would help fund low-carbon power.

EXPERT VIEW: How UK government policy is hobbling the green economy

Committee chairman Tim Yeo said in a statement: “The Government is in danger of botching its plans to boost clean energy, because the Treasury is refusing to back new contracts to deliver investment in nuclear, wind, wave and carbon capture and storage.”

IPPR Associate Director for Globalisation and Climate Change Will Straw said: “Ed Davey must go back to the drawing board and develop proposals which will keep energy bills down, improve competition and encourage essential investment, rather than deferring to the short-term thinking of George Osborne.

“It is crucial that Ed Davey heeds the Committee’s warning that a 2030 decarbonisation target for the electricity sector is essential for investor confidence.”

The Energy and Climate Change Committee is made up of members from all three major UK parties – and led by Conservative backbencher and former Environment Minister Tim Yeo MP. Its findings are based on 79 written submissions, five oral evidence sessions and a roundtable of investors and financial analysts.

INTERVIEW:  Energy & Climate Change Select Committee member Dr Phillip Lee MP on why UK’s cross-party consensus on climate change cannot be taken for granted

The post Energy and Climate Change Committee says draft energy bill could lead to UK missing climate targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

An influential body of UK MPs has released a critical report into UK government plans to reform the electricity market.

Like most countries worldwide, the UK is facing the challenge of meeting increased levels of electricity demand while also having to cut carbon emissions. A fifth of the UK’s fleet of fossil-fuelled and Nuclear power stations are likely to come out of service by 2020.

The current economic crisis is also putting intense pressure on state finances, leading to conflict between the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Treasury, who control the purse strings.

The Treasury appear unwilling to ramp up investment in ‘green electricity’, and have been accused of blocking renewable energy initiatives by Energy and Climate Change Select Committee chairman Tim Yeo.

The 2008 Climate Change Act established a legally-binding target to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In June 2011 the government adopted a new carbon budget, agreeing a 50% reduction in emissions by 2025 relative to 1990 levels.

Below I have picked out the key criticisms from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee report – these are their own words – I have not paraphrased or edited the copy, bar adding explanations which are marked in brackets.

No clear goals:

The Department of Energy And Climate Change (DECC) stated objectives for reforming the electricity market (to move to a secure, more efficient, low-carbon energy system in a cost-effective way) are uncontentious but vacuous; very few people would seriously object to these aims. However, the lack of specific outcomes means that there is still uncertainty about what exactly the government is hoping to achieve through these reforms.

Not enough focus on energy efficiency:

As with many aspects of energy policy, the Government has fallen into the trap of focusing far too closely on the supply side of the energy system, while neglecting to consider the contribution that demand-side activities could make to security and climate change objectives. Thinking about the demand-side needs to be given a much higher priority in the Bill, not least because it is likely to deliver much more cost effective solutions than building ever greater levels of generating capacity.

It is completely unsatisfactory that DECC’s work was not completed in time to be published alongside the draft Bill. This suggests that DECC is still failing to give enough priority to ensuring that demand-side measures contribute to our energy policy goals.

(DECC released a report on how it could reduce consumer demand for electricity this month. UK electricity demand in 2010 was 328 TWh – in 2030 it is projected to rise to 411 TWh. 155TWh of demand reduction potential (40%) has already been identified)

Negative effect on independent producers:

Witnesses told us that the EMR (Electricity Market Reform) proposals as they stand will in fact deliver the exact opposite of this ambition; they are likely to lead to greater levels of vertical integration and fewer independent players in the market. It will become a “big boys’ game” that will not work for “little people”.

The Coalition Agreement states that “We will encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where local people benefit from the power produced”. However, the Renewable Obligation has not delivered community-owned schemes and the proposed CfDs are also unlikely to work for community schemes. A simple Fixed Feed-in Tariff would be a more appropriate form of support.

(The Renewable Obligation was introduced in 2002. It places an obligation on UK electricity suppliers to source an increasing proportion of electricity they supply to customers from renewable sources.)

Emissions Performance Standard:

The Emissions Performance Standard (a specified emissions threshold for new power stations)  as currently proposed would be at best pointless. At worst, the decision to grandfather (once a plant receives planning permission it will not be affected by subsequent changes to emissions rules for a certain period) the initial level until 2045 may undermine our ability to meet long-term carbon targets and so the length of the grandfathering period should be reduced.

(Simon Skillings from E3G warned that if the EPS was grandfathered until 2045, the only lever available to future governments to regulate emissions from unabated gas-fired plant would be the carbon price: “it will need to be very, very high”)

Dash for gas warning

The Government’s intention to review the EPS in 2015 is another source of uncertainty for investors. It may even cause a “dash for gas” itself, if investors rush to build gas plant before the review. We are concerned that DECC’s decision to grandfather the EPS until 2045 is not compatible with our long-term decarbonisation objectives.

If too much new unabated gas-fired plant comes forward under these arrangements, future governments could be faced with a tough decision either to miss the carbon budgets or to set an extremely high carbon price.

Time for policy certainty:

It is right to prioritise the decarbonisation of the electricity system because this is likely to deliver the most cost effective route to meeting our 2050 climate change targets. Although statutory carbon reduction targets are set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, these are economy wide, rather than sector specific.

We conclude that providing greater clarity about the contribution that the power sector is expected to make towards meeting these targets would help to provide certainty to investors. The Government should set a 2030 carbon intensity target for the electricity sector in secondary legislation based on the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change.

What price Nuclear?

Since there is little competitive pressure or prospect of moving to auctions for new nuclear, we are concerned that the strike price for nuclear could be driven upwards. We hope that industry claims that the cost of nuclear is competitive with other forms of low-carbon energy will be reflected in the offers they put forward during strike price negotiations.

We do not believe that a nuclear strike price higher than that given to offshore wind would represent good value for money to the consumer. The Secretary of State should not agree to contracts of this nature.

Lack of cooperation from Treasury:

The perceived conflict between DECC and HM Treasury on some aspects of EMR is also contributing to uncertainty among the investor community. We sincerely hope that these two departments can in future develop a better working relationship than they have demonstrated to us during the course of our inquiry. We hope that all departments will present a clear, consistent and united message as the Bill passes through the House.

The post At a glance: Key criticisms of UK draft energy bill in Select Committee report appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ken Livingstone will offer Londoners the chance to buy their electricity from an energy co-operative if elected. (Source: WEF)

Londoners will be able to purchase low-cost electricity from an energy co-operative, according to Ken Livingstone.

Writing for RTCC, the former Mayor of London, who is standing as Labour’s candidate in the Mayoral election on May 3, made a series of pledges on energy and the environment.

“My new London Energy Co-operative will purchase energy on the wholesale markets, giving Londoners a cheaper alternative to rip-off energy suppliers,” Livingstone will say.

“It will source as much of its energy as possible from low carbon sources, including investing in new renewable energy itself.”

If elected, Livingstone says he would call an Energy Summit to secure the city’s share of a £1.3bn pot of funding for energy efficiency measures.

Livingstone also says he will look to encourage Londoners back onto public transport by trimming money of fare prices and indicated that he is opposed to a new airport in the Thames Estuary.

The full article will be published on Wednesday, March 7, as part of RTCC’s London Week.

All four leading candidates have been invited to submit their vision for a greener London. You can read Green Party nominee Jenny Jones’ article here.

The post Livingstone vows to provide Londoners with low-cost, low-carbon energy appeared first on Climate Home News.

The USA should stop hiding behind China on climate change, according to former UK Environment Minister John Gummer.

Speaking to RTCC, Mr Gummer, now known as Lord Deben, praised the efforts of China as well as South Africa, Brazil and India but called for their domestic efforts to be complemented with continued development of the UN sponsored international climate negotiations.

“Proportionally, China is arguably doing more to combat climate change than any other country,” said Lord Deben.

Through his work as President of GLOBE International, a network of environment legislators, Lord Deben has helped develop domestic and bi-lateral climate action in several countries, including China, India and South Africa.

“The fact is, China believes in climate change and is trying to find a way to shoulder a proper proportion of the burden internationally. And, internally it is finding ways to deal with the very serious effects of climate change.

“In general, the US doesn’t believe in climate change and it isn’t trying to find ways to solve the problems internationally. It is trying to find a way that it doesn’t get blamed for any failure,” said the former Tory Minister.

Lord Deben also accused the US of hiding behind statistics about the scale of Chinese emissions and using them as an excuse for inaction.

“There are all sorts of faults with that. First of all it isn’t up to China to go first [on emission cuts] because the Americans have contributed more to climate change and have a huge historic responsibility.

“Secondly, the US is producing wildly more pollution per head than China.

“Thirdly, much of the pollution in China is on the behalf of the US because they exported their [manufacturing] jobs to China. Yet they haven’t reduced their own emissions,” said Lord Deben.

Data from the World Bank for 2008 estimates that carbon emissions per capita in the US are 17.9 metric tonnes compared to just 5.3 for China.

The US frequently points to the total magnitude of China’s emissions as an argument that it should commit to make cuts first.

A Norwegian study in 2009 compared the countries’ consumption-based emissions. Rather than being linked to the emissions made within a specific territory, they are based on the carbon related to the raw material, manufacture and shipping of the products consumed in a country.

This method puts Chinese emissions at 3.1 metric tonnes for China compared to 29 metric tonnes in the US.

A call in the UK for emissions reporting to switch to the consumption-based model was rejected earlier this month, with Climate Change Minister Greg Barker claiming that the change would make an international climate deal “nigh-on impossible to negotiate”.

The change in system would swing the UK’s emission cuts of 28% between 1990 and 2009 to an increase of 20% between 1990 and 2008.

Former UNFCCC chief Michael Zammit Cutajar described the US-China dynamic as “the G2” of climate negotiations.

Speaking last week at an event organised by RTCC, Cutajar said the US position on climate change had “morphed into a sub-plot of the position US-China position on the geopolitical stage”.

Contact the author of this story @rtcc_john or jp@rtcc.org

The post Former UK Env Minister: US hiding behind China on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

Shadow Energy and Climate Change Minister Caroline Flint called for more support for the low carbon economy (Source: Labour)

The British Chancellor is among those in government with an “active contempt” for environmental protection that leaves the UK at risk of missing out on the transition to a low-carbon economy, according to the Labour Party’s shadow energy and climate change minister.

“The likes of the present chancellor not only believe that the green agenda is bad for business, jobs and growth, but actively revel in their contempt for environmental protection,” said Caroline Flint, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

“George Osborne said in his autumn statement: ‘Environmental measures and the transition to a low carbon economy was a burden to British businesses’. Throwaway remarks have real market consequences. They create uncertainty and make the UK a less attractive place to invest,” she claimed at an Aldersgate Group debate in London.

“According to this view environmental policies are a luxury that can only be afforded when times are good and it is an argument that I believe we should firmly reject,” said Flint.

She went on to say that the government’s acceptance of her own party’s climate change targets set during its time in power, had created cross-party consensus.

“That clarity of direction underpins the attractiveness of the UK to green investment,” she said. “Today the question marks over the government’s green credentials have proliferated and they weigh genuine scepticism over whether the government is sincere in its support of that consensus and open to green business.”

Flint called on the government, and specifically the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey, to stop the recent slide in UK investment in green growth and renewable energy.

“My department is already implementing bold and ambitious reforms – like electricity market reform and the Green Deal – to unlock private investment, drive innovation and build a resilient, green, competitive economy. It’s now my job to see those through,” said Davey at his first public engagement in his new role.

Flint said these reforms were not enough however.

“The stakes could not be higher for the UK in the green arms race. Yet we’re falling behind,” she said.

“Brazil and India are not just acting to responding to climate change but are putting in place the production sectors to respond to the inevitable economic demands of this new era.”

The post Labour: Gov’t “contempt” for environment puts green economy at risk appeared first on Climate Home News.

UK Climate Change Minister Greg Barker said there was no pressure to change the current method of emissions reporting (Source: DECC)

A switch to consumption-based emissions reporting could jeopardise the UN climate negotiations, according to UK Climate Change Minister Greg Barker.

Giving evidence to a Select Committee hearing yesterday, Barker said that the future was with territorial reporting, based on the location of emissions, rather than consumption based methods which incorporate the carbon used to create a nation’s imports.

This system is judged to be fairer as it allocates emissions to the developed economies that consume goods, rather than penalising less developed countries that manufacture them.

“It would be nigh on impossible to negotiate an emissions reduction treaty on the basis of consumption based emissions,” said Barker. “An attempt to do that could delay an effective solution on climate change for years or even decades.”

The UN climate change agency, the EU and the Kyoto Protocol all use territorial based emissions as the basis of their carbon accounting.

“It would also be impossible to get base international reporting on embedded emissions figures because they are so hard to calculate accurately and verify. It would certainly be impossible to agree a method internationally.”

Barker added that: “There is no meaningful pressure from other countries for any change.”

UK emissions ‘rose’

The difference in the results of the two methods was highlighted by the Committee’s chair Tim Yeo MP.

He pointed out that under territorial reporting Britain had cuts its emissions by 28% between 1990 and 2009. The consumption based data however, showed an increase of 20% between 1990 and 2008.

Barker said that consumption based accounting provided “useful information” but reiterated that it should not form the basis for international negotiations.

“Greg Barker is right to say that the UN climate framework should continue to be based on the well-established Kyoto accounting framework, and that trying to shift to consumption based reporting would be a distraction,” said Keith Allot, head of climate change policy at WWF.

“However, he is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater – consumption-based reporting can be used alongside the existing production-based approach to improve national policy making and to guard against perverse consequences.”

RELATED VIDEO: UK Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker offers his analysis of COP17 talks in Durban.

The post UK Minister: Switch to ‘fairer’ emissions reporting could derail UN process appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Arctic environment is an area of special scientific interest and protection. (Source: NASA Goddard/Flickr)

A group of UK MPs has launched an inquiry into Arctic environmental protection, it has been announced.

The Environment Audit Committee will investigate the potential consequences of the commercialisation of the Arctic as oil and gas drilling and shipping routes look set to develop in the region.

Melting ice has opened new shipping routes and fishing territories. The change in conditions has also led to increased oil and gas exploration and the granting of additional drilling licences.

“We will be looking at what the UK Government can do to ensure that the Arctic is protected and whether it is even possible to drill for oil and gas safely in such remote regions,” said Joan Whalley MP, Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

“Concerns over climate change should be recognised internationally as a limiting factor on any new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic,” she added.

Norwegian firm Statoil became the latest firm to announce a major find. The Havis field in the Barents Sea is estimated to contain 200-300 million barrels of oil. It adds to the company’s Skrugard field of the same magnitude.

“The Skrugard and Havis discoveries will be important for industrial development and will further boost activity in the supplier industry, providing new jobs and generating spin-off effects throughout the region,” said Helge Lund, president and CEO of Statoil.

Although the UK has no Arctic territories it is an observer state of the Arctic Council.

Green groups including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace oppose Arctic drilling on two fronts, the risk to the natural environment from a spill and the additional fossil fuels that would make additional carbon that would “throw fuel on the fire of climate change”.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: The changing status of the Arctic is affecting people as well as the environment. Will Vanderbilt from the Climate Change Adaptation Research Group at McGill University told RTCC about some interesting research analysing the changing lives of indigenous communities in northern Canada.

The post UK launches Arctic environment inquiry appeared first on Climate Home News.

Margaret Thatcher made some pivotal speeches on climate change (Original image: Margaret Thatcher Foundation)

She was the most divisive of political figures, but looking back, Thatcher’s environmental policies reached across political divides.

Before becoming The Iron Lady, played by Meryl Streep in the film of the same name, Baroness Thatcher was a chemist. This scientific awareness was demonstrated by her response to the early presentations of concerns surrounding rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Addressing the UN General Assembly on environmental degradation in 1989 she said: “The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto.

“Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all.

“That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching,” she said.

At the time environmental issues were only just beginning to gain a mainstream foothold and were thought of by many as the exclusive domain of the liberal left.

“We should remember that Margaret Thatcher’s background was that of a trained scientist, and the environment was always something she was going to take a keen interest in,” Angie Bray, Conservative MP for Ealing Central and Acton told RTCC.

“Certainly, as Prime Minister in the late 1980s, she was one of the first world leaders to spell out the need to protect our environment for future generations,” says Bray.

Iain Murray, vice-president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, has suggested that Maggie’s environmentalism still carried the more traditional Thatcherite marks.

‘Beware the cranks’

She believed that local level pollution issues could be solved by replacing poorly run municipal services with privately-run enterprises. She warned against the “cranks and romantics” of the “environment lobby” in her autobiography.

Crucially however, she separated these issues from that of global atmospheric pollution, where she took a much stronger line. It is specifically on climate change where it becomes harder for environmental groups to criticise her record, regardless of how they may feel about her overall performance as Britain’s longest serving Prime Minister of the 20th century.

She told the Royal Society in 1988 that “it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself”.

Murray notes that in her book Statecraft, published in 2002, she was critical of how the climate change process had developed and was wary of it being misused by the left to push their agenda on other topics.

She wrote in 2002: “Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.”

Ten years later, this economically-bounded approach to climate change has been more or less paraphrased by the UK’s coalition government today. George Osborne said in October 2011 that “we’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business”.

It is disingenuous to call Thatcher an early green leader, but she recognised that climate change needed to be addressed long before her contemporaries and her mark is clearly visible in many environmental policies today.

The post Margaret Thatcher: The Green Lady? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Britain’s future security and prosperity is at stake when the world gathers for the COP17 climate summit in Durban next week, according to the Foreign Office’s lead climate official.

Speaking to RTCC, John Ashton, the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change, said the UK cannot afford to take a backseat role at the negotiations.

The Eurozone crisis, sluggish economic growth and Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision not to attend the talks will ensure limited media and political attention in Britain is focused on Durban.

But Ashton, who was appointed to the role of Special Representative in 2006 and has served under the Blair, Brown and now Coalition administrations, says it is vital the UK delegation make their presence felt at the talks.

“We do have a strong political foundation for being a voice of high ambition for climate change – it’s no secret that there is a degree of political consensus across all political parties in this country. All want to see a high level of ambition,” he told RTCC.

“That’s not in my view because of a desire to dictate to the rest of the world, or a desire to be somehow more altruistic than anyone else. It’s because of a hard-edged understanding that a world that is failing to deal with climate change is a world where British people will not have decent prospect of security and prosperity.

“What do taxpayers in the end pay for in return for government? They expect government to maintain the conditions for security and prosperity. So that’s why having reached that conclusion, I don’t think there’s a debate to be had – I think we then just say, how can we act as effectively as possible as a force for effective high ambition on climate change?”

Ashton will be pushing for a second commitment period to Kyoto at COP17

Britain has historically played a major role in brokering deals at the annual environmental summits. Margaret Thatcher set the ball rolling in 1989 with a speech at the United Nations, warning of the ‘damaging and dangerous ways’ in which man was affecting the planet.

In 1997 John Prescott played a major part in ensuring the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol, while 11 years later in 2008 Parliament passed the Climate Change Act, enshrining UK commitments to emission cuts in law.

But Ashton stresses this is not a battle the UK can fight on its own. In particular he cites the role of the European Union (EU) in building the foundations of a global low-carbon economy, through its support for binding emissions targets and introduction of regulations to support energy efficiency.

On November 16 the European Parliament passed a motion backing the Kyoto Protocol and extending its emission reduction targets, despite a perceived reluctance from some members – notably Eastern European parties – to commit to greater cuts.

And despite the current crisis in the Eurozone, which has seen the very basis of Europe’s unity openly questioned, he believes it can and will pull together on the issue of climate change.

“I’m struck by how much momentum the EU has been able to build despite the enormous distractions and the crises we have been beset by since 2008 and Lehman brothers. As with everything in the EU it’s a complex picture and you see different views from different countries,” Ashton said.

“The EU clearly has a lot on its plate, but I think if it stands back and says what have we achieved and what can we achieve, I think the climate and carbon story is quite an important part of that discussion…and I also think that EU member states acting individually would be a lot less than the sum of their parts, in trying to shape the global response.

“We’re the world’s largest single market. The decisions we take about our technology standards – and what are the technology standards for a low carbon world – are widely copied because a lot of other people feel the EU already has good institutions for setting technology standards, why should we reinvent the wheel? That gives the EU weight in the global economy beyond its direct imprint.”

Building for 2015

While most government ministers will descend on the COP for the second week of talks, the UK and other national delegations will be in Durban from the start of the summit, working on the various strands that could form an agreement.

With the world’s leaders staying away, and financial turmoil continuing to affect the markets, many observers feel the real impact of COP17 could be felt in 2015 – in a sense these talks could be a building block for future developments.

But Ashton does finish with a warning for delegates taking these talks – and the UNFCCC process – for granted, and reminds all attending of the importance of moving forward.

“We must avoid a collapse in confidence in the idea of a legally binding response to climate change. You could get a complete and definitive failure in confidence in any one of these meetings,” he said.

“In a sense breakdown is always possible – and actually having had that once in Copenhagen it would potentially be terminal to have it again, so that really has to be avoided. On the other hand, what’s possible is promising. Progress on the Green Climate Fund and other Cancun issues – but part of it is a question over the legal nature of the regime we are trying to build and I think that really has two parts.”

“It has a 2^nd Kyoto commitment period but it also has a ‘commitment to commit’ from those countries who are not taking on Kyoto commitments…in the form of some kind of initiating of a negotiation about what happens at the end of the Kyoto 2^nd commitment period – how will we broaden this regime.

“We know now that already it needs to be broader, you can’t deliver 2 degrees simply on the basis of the commitments made by the Kyoto parties with binding emission caps. Albeit we have to do it in an equitable way and respect the principle which has always been part of this negotiation: ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. ”

John Ashton: Full Q&A

Contact the author of this story @rtcc_edk

The post Ashton: Britain’s future security and prosperity at stake in Durban appeared first on Climate Home News.

Former UK cabinet minister Lord Gummer says UK politicians will only adopt greener policies if they are put under sustained pressure from the public.

Speaking at the launch of Climate Week 2012, Gummer, who was Secretary of State for the Environment from 1993-1997, said politicians needed to ‘feel the heat’  for profound changes to occur.

With the Eurozone crisis and recession fears dominating the headlines, Gummer admitted it was easy for Ministers to lose sight of the key challenges posed by climate change.

Despite Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge in May 2010 to lead the ‘Greenest Government Ever’, his coalition has come under increasing criticism for focusing more on cutting the deficit than promoting low-carbon development.

Influential UK business lobby the CBI recently accused the government of an ‘own goal‘ over its decision to cut feed-in-tariffs for solar power, arguing that it made the transition to a green economy ‘slower and bumpier’ than it needed to be.

And Gummer – who quit as a Conservative MP after the 2009 Copenhagen summit to concentrate on highlighting the risks associated with climate change – called on constituents to play their part in taking MPs to task.

“Five letters a week makes a tremendous difference…not the dreadful letters charities ask you to sign but handwritten letters with some spelling mistakes,” he said.

“If your Member of Parliament receives letters from constituents on this subject [climate change] they will start to feel ‘I could be in trouble’ if they don’t do anything about it.”

Gummer is chairman of water giants Veolia and Environmental consultants Sancroft, and believes companies will change their habits if they receive enough feedback from customers.

He cited Coca Cola, who have recently launched an ‘all-white’ range of cans in the USA, ditching their traditional red cover in order to promote efforts to protect the Arctic.

With 1.4 Billion white cans in production, the company aims to raise up to $3 million and together with partners WWF raise awareness of the ‘Arctic Home’ project.

Gummer added that while it is vital to keep pressure on Parliament and big business, it is equally important for the public to offer positive feedback when companies did make an effort.

“We also have to say thank-you when they do things properly, we must be grateful when they do it well,” he said.

“Business must be put under pressure at every level – and it is important that a company that does not make an effort knows it will not be taken seriously.”

The post ‘Five letters a week’ will force MPs to act on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.