New Statesman
Published 24 March 2010
The UK's Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) has planned to invest £25m in an advanced CO2 capture technology demonstration project
It said that it is beginning the hunt for organizations or consortia to bid for the project.
The proposed project will see the development of capture technology to a stage where it has completed full scale demonstration by 2015 and ready for adoption into full scale commercial power applications by 2020.
ETI said that bidders will need to demonstrate and justify how their approach will enable their technology to reach a state of development that will allow future investors to start engineering the design of a power station using this next generation technology in 2015, with operation commencing in 2020.
David Clarke, chief executive of ETI, said: "Capturing the CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled power stations using the technologies currently available can increase the capital costs of a new power station by between 50 and 100% and significantly reduce power output or increase fuel consumption.
"This project would enable the technology to catch the 'second wave' of CCS implementation in the 2020s following on from the first phase of plants expected to be built between 2015 and 2020 as part of the Department for Energy and Climate Change's demonstration projects."
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Brazil oil growth won't stunt biofuel: official
Peter Murphy
SAO PAULO
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - An expected rise in Brazil's oil output will not threaten its fast-growing biofuels sector as more petroleum will be destined for export while most of its cane-derived ethanol is consumed at home, a government biofuel official said on Tuesday.
Brazil made a huge find of crude several miles below the sea floor in 2007 whose total reserves have been estimated at 50 billion to 80 billion barrels. Its oil production in Brazil is expected to nearly double by 2020.
At the same time, it is pioneering one of the world's largest biofuels industries and 90 percent of its new car sales have flex-fuel technology, enabling them to run solely on its cane-derived ethanol, gasoline or any mixture of both.
Ethanol is usually the cheaper of the two and increasing availability of crude oil is unlikely to influence that, said Ricardo Dornelles, director at the Secretariat for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Renewable Fuels.
"There is not this worry because oil production will look to the export market," Dornelles told reporters after making a presentation on the influence of rising Brazilian oil output on the Latin American country's biofuel sector at the F.O. Licht analysts' Sugar and Ethanol Brazil conference in Sao Paulo.
"Petrobras is making plans for refineries because Brazil wants to be an exporter (of refined products)," he said, referring to the state-controlled energy company.
Petrobras is one of the nation's biggest ethanol distributors through its network of filling stations, but does not yet have its own ethanol production. It has ethanol projects that are still in development and plans to buy stakes in ethanol companies.
ETHANOIL
Most of Brazil's ethanol is consumed on the domestic market and flex-fuel cars now comprise around 40 percent of its total vehicle fleet, the sugar and ethanol cane industry association Unica says.
Many motorists abandoned ethanol in recent months and filled up with gasoline after poor weather restricted cane harvesting and ethanol production but are switching back after a sharp drop in the biofuel's price in the last few weeks.
Brazil, whose environmental credentials have suffered over deforestation in the Amazon, is proud of its status as a pioneer in biofuels and hopes to develop the still relatively small international market for its cane ethanol.
To do this, it says other countries need to begin producing the biofuel to reassure consumer nations about the security of supplies which heavily influenced by the weather.
In a separate presentation, Jose Luiz Oliverio, the vice-head of Technology and Development at Dedini, a Brazilian firm producing machinery to equip sugar and ethanol mills, said total energy yield from Brazil's ethanol would be more than from oil in 2010 at the equivalent of 2,310 barrels of oil per day. He expected that to climb to 3 million barrels a day by 2015.
"Even with subsalt (oil production), I doubt (oil) will get to that level," he said.
With a vast area of uncultivated land with potential for farming use, Brazil is likely to become an increasingly important source of both food and biofuels as well as oil and gas from the offshore fields near the southeast coast.
"The discovery of subsalt won't reduce the importance that the government attributes to the development of the biofuel sector," Dornelles said.
(Editing by Marguerita Choy)
SAO PAULO
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - An expected rise in Brazil's oil output will not threaten its fast-growing biofuels sector as more petroleum will be destined for export while most of its cane-derived ethanol is consumed at home, a government biofuel official said on Tuesday.
Brazil made a huge find of crude several miles below the sea floor in 2007 whose total reserves have been estimated at 50 billion to 80 billion barrels. Its oil production in Brazil is expected to nearly double by 2020.
At the same time, it is pioneering one of the world's largest biofuels industries and 90 percent of its new car sales have flex-fuel technology, enabling them to run solely on its cane-derived ethanol, gasoline or any mixture of both.
Ethanol is usually the cheaper of the two and increasing availability of crude oil is unlikely to influence that, said Ricardo Dornelles, director at the Secretariat for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Renewable Fuels.
"There is not this worry because oil production will look to the export market," Dornelles told reporters after making a presentation on the influence of rising Brazilian oil output on the Latin American country's biofuel sector at the F.O. Licht analysts' Sugar and Ethanol Brazil conference in Sao Paulo.
"Petrobras is making plans for refineries because Brazil wants to be an exporter (of refined products)," he said, referring to the state-controlled energy company.
Petrobras is one of the nation's biggest ethanol distributors through its network of filling stations, but does not yet have its own ethanol production. It has ethanol projects that are still in development and plans to buy stakes in ethanol companies.
ETHANOIL
Most of Brazil's ethanol is consumed on the domestic market and flex-fuel cars now comprise around 40 percent of its total vehicle fleet, the sugar and ethanol cane industry association Unica says.
Many motorists abandoned ethanol in recent months and filled up with gasoline after poor weather restricted cane harvesting and ethanol production but are switching back after a sharp drop in the biofuel's price in the last few weeks.
Brazil, whose environmental credentials have suffered over deforestation in the Amazon, is proud of its status as a pioneer in biofuels and hopes to develop the still relatively small international market for its cane ethanol.
To do this, it says other countries need to begin producing the biofuel to reassure consumer nations about the security of supplies which heavily influenced by the weather.
In a separate presentation, Jose Luiz Oliverio, the vice-head of Technology and Development at Dedini, a Brazilian firm producing machinery to equip sugar and ethanol mills, said total energy yield from Brazil's ethanol would be more than from oil in 2010 at the equivalent of 2,310 barrels of oil per day. He expected that to climb to 3 million barrels a day by 2015.
"Even with subsalt (oil production), I doubt (oil) will get to that level," he said.
With a vast area of uncultivated land with potential for farming use, Brazil is likely to become an increasingly important source of both food and biofuels as well as oil and gas from the offshore fields near the southeast coast.
"The discovery of subsalt won't reduce the importance that the government attributes to the development of the biofuel sector," Dornelles said.
(Editing by Marguerita Choy)
What does the Budget mean for science?
Shortly after Alistair Darling sat down after delivering his Budget speech today, Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, took to Twitter with his response. His verdict:
"A great budget for science and science based business."
It might well be. But it's very difficult to reach that conclusion from Mr Darling's speech and the Treasury's published documents. It's true that there are a few good things there for science, and given the widespread nervousness in the research community that cuts are on the way, the absence of anything bad is in itself a cause for celebration. Science, though, could hardly be called a centrepiece.
I counted four mentions of the word "science" in the Chancellor's statement, only one of which referred to a new initiative. There were another six in the Budget Report, including two in headings and one in the glossary. That's a little hard to reconcile with Lord Drayson's characteristic optimism.
That's not to say there weren't some cherries. There is £270 million of new money for universities, to fund an extra 20,000 places in science, technology, engineering and maths. Good news for sure. Also welcome was the £35 million for the Universities Capital Fund, to support commercialisation of their activities, and £30 million for the new Web Science Institute.
What wasn't addressed at all, however, was the future of the science budget. There was no indication of how research funding will fare in the next Comprehensive Spending Review -- and it is that event, not this Budget, which will have the greatest impact on the field. If the next Chancellor cuts or freezes the science budget, the little extra that has been invested today will count for little. And we aren't any the wiser about what is likely to transpire.
In their responses to the Budget, science groups have largely taken the same view. Sir Peter Williams, Vice-President and Treasurer of the Royal Society, said:
“With more and more of our competitor nations announcing increased funding for science – some of them significantly - it’s going to be vital that the UK steps up to the plate and invests heavily in a sector that is one of our few genuine areas of economic advantage. Science has to be central to any long-term strategy for economic growth.
"Today’s Budget shows some indication that Government appreciates the role science can play in re-building our economy. The funds earmarked for modernisation in universities and commercialisation of research are small but positive initiatives. However, we’ll see just how serious they are when money is allocated in the next Comprehensive Spending Review.”
The Campaign for Science and Engineering's response is here. Highlights include:
“The government’s additional support for educating the next generation of science and engineering graduates is needed. Their skills are in demand by employers and will be vital for re-balancing the economy.
“Unfortunately, there was no clarification about how the government would reconcile the planned £600 million cuts to higher education, science and research budgets, with Lord Mandelson’s commitment to protect science spending. If the government is going to see through its commitment under the Science and Innovation Investment Framework, then the Science Budget for 2011 – 2014 should be no less than the Budget’s forecast for economic growth of at least 3%.”
Nature's The Great Beyond blog has a nice roundup by Richard van Noorden, and I also recommend Roger Highfield's take in New Scientist's The S Word blog.
"A great budget for science and science based business."
It might well be. But it's very difficult to reach that conclusion from Mr Darling's speech and the Treasury's published documents. It's true that there are a few good things there for science, and given the widespread nervousness in the research community that cuts are on the way, the absence of anything bad is in itself a cause for celebration. Science, though, could hardly be called a centrepiece.
I counted four mentions of the word "science" in the Chancellor's statement, only one of which referred to a new initiative. There were another six in the Budget Report, including two in headings and one in the glossary. That's a little hard to reconcile with Lord Drayson's characteristic optimism.
That's not to say there weren't some cherries. There is £270 million of new money for universities, to fund an extra 20,000 places in science, technology, engineering and maths. Good news for sure. Also welcome was the £35 million for the Universities Capital Fund, to support commercialisation of their activities, and £30 million for the new Web Science Institute.
What wasn't addressed at all, however, was the future of the science budget. There was no indication of how research funding will fare in the next Comprehensive Spending Review -- and it is that event, not this Budget, which will have the greatest impact on the field. If the next Chancellor cuts or freezes the science budget, the little extra that has been invested today will count for little. And we aren't any the wiser about what is likely to transpire.
In their responses to the Budget, science groups have largely taken the same view. Sir Peter Williams, Vice-President and Treasurer of the Royal Society, said:
“With more and more of our competitor nations announcing increased funding for science – some of them significantly - it’s going to be vital that the UK steps up to the plate and invests heavily in a sector that is one of our few genuine areas of economic advantage. Science has to be central to any long-term strategy for economic growth.
"Today’s Budget shows some indication that Government appreciates the role science can play in re-building our economy. The funds earmarked for modernisation in universities and commercialisation of research are small but positive initiatives. However, we’ll see just how serious they are when money is allocated in the next Comprehensive Spending Review.”
The Campaign for Science and Engineering's response is here. Highlights include:
“The government’s additional support for educating the next generation of science and engineering graduates is needed. Their skills are in demand by employers and will be vital for re-balancing the economy.
“Unfortunately, there was no clarification about how the government would reconcile the planned £600 million cuts to higher education, science and research budgets, with Lord Mandelson’s commitment to protect science spending. If the government is going to see through its commitment under the Science and Innovation Investment Framework, then the Science Budget for 2011 – 2014 should be no less than the Budget’s forecast for economic growth of at least 3%.”
Nature's The Great Beyond blog has a nice roundup by Richard van Noorden, and I also recommend Roger Highfield's take in New Scientist's The S Word blog.
Green measures left out of the red box at a time of economic need
By Michael McCarthy
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Although there was a fanfare of praise for the announcement of the Green Investment Bank, most of the budget's other environmental measures were tinkerings, adjustments and continuations of existing policies rather than radical new departures, in areas ranging from fuel duty to the landfill tax.
Some commentators thought that the lack of major green measures was clear evidence that in times of recession, the environment takes a back seat.
Indeed, Martyn Williams, Friends of the Earth's parliamentary campaigner, provided some evidence of this. "Stepping back from the policy detail, the 'green mood music' in the budget is interesting," he said.
"I whizzed through the last three budget statements and found that in 2008 Alistair Darling devoted about 1,300 words to the 'green' bit of his speech. In 2009, it was about 700. This year it was around 250.
"Obviously this is not a scientific measure of which was the greenest budget – one good policy can be announced in just a few words, whereas it takes pages to set out a list of ineffective ideas. But it does suggest that Mr Darling thinks there is less need to make a big deal out of environmental policies now than he did a few years back."
However, there were some developments rather smaller than a £2bn investment bank that green campaigners nevertheless welcomed.
The Government allocated £30m from the Strategic Investment Fund to fund low-carbon transport schemes, which included a second Green Bus competition to increase the number of low-carbon buses on the UK's roads, and a new test centre in Nuneaton for future intelligent transport technologies, which could increase fuel efficiency and reduce congestion.
There was also the announcement of company car tax exemption for zero-carbon cars, and these were greeted warmly.
Yet environmentalists were split over the issue of more money – £250m – for the Government's latest cutting edge road project, "managed motorways", where motorways are run more like railways, with speed limits being regularly changed to cope with congestion and other traffic conditions. The scheme is being initially tried out at several locations on the M42 and the M6.
Friends of the Earth said the scheme was "road widening by stealth" but the Campaign for Better Transport was supportive. "It gives us the opportunity to manage traffic properly, and control how much traffic goes on the road, and there is some evidence that CO2 can reduced by it," said executive director Stephen Joseph. Mr Joseph also welcomed the announcement of a "pothole fund" - an additional £84m to fund the repair of roads damaged by the recent cold weather. "This will help cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists," he said.
The fuel duty escalator will continue, adding 2.76p per litre to the cost of petrol over the next 12 months (although it will be staged in three parts) - a measure that the Government calculates will be saving 1.7m tonnes of CO2 per year by 2014-15 – and the landfill tax tax escalator of £8 per year will be continued for a further year, to 2014. "This is welcome and will further drive incentives for expanding and improving recycling and reuse facilities," said Friends of the Earth.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Although there was a fanfare of praise for the announcement of the Green Investment Bank, most of the budget's other environmental measures were tinkerings, adjustments and continuations of existing policies rather than radical new departures, in areas ranging from fuel duty to the landfill tax.
Some commentators thought that the lack of major green measures was clear evidence that in times of recession, the environment takes a back seat.
Indeed, Martyn Williams, Friends of the Earth's parliamentary campaigner, provided some evidence of this. "Stepping back from the policy detail, the 'green mood music' in the budget is interesting," he said.
"I whizzed through the last three budget statements and found that in 2008 Alistair Darling devoted about 1,300 words to the 'green' bit of his speech. In 2009, it was about 700. This year it was around 250.
"Obviously this is not a scientific measure of which was the greenest budget – one good policy can be announced in just a few words, whereas it takes pages to set out a list of ineffective ideas. But it does suggest that Mr Darling thinks there is less need to make a big deal out of environmental policies now than he did a few years back."
However, there were some developments rather smaller than a £2bn investment bank that green campaigners nevertheless welcomed.
The Government allocated £30m from the Strategic Investment Fund to fund low-carbon transport schemes, which included a second Green Bus competition to increase the number of low-carbon buses on the UK's roads, and a new test centre in Nuneaton for future intelligent transport technologies, which could increase fuel efficiency and reduce congestion.
There was also the announcement of company car tax exemption for zero-carbon cars, and these were greeted warmly.
Yet environmentalists were split over the issue of more money – £250m – for the Government's latest cutting edge road project, "managed motorways", where motorways are run more like railways, with speed limits being regularly changed to cope with congestion and other traffic conditions. The scheme is being initially tried out at several locations on the M42 and the M6.
Friends of the Earth said the scheme was "road widening by stealth" but the Campaign for Better Transport was supportive. "It gives us the opportunity to manage traffic properly, and control how much traffic goes on the road, and there is some evidence that CO2 can reduced by it," said executive director Stephen Joseph. Mr Joseph also welcomed the announcement of a "pothole fund" - an additional £84m to fund the repair of roads damaged by the recent cold weather. "This will help cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists," he said.
The fuel duty escalator will continue, adding 2.76p per litre to the cost of petrol over the next 12 months (although it will be staged in three parts) - a measure that the Government calculates will be saving 1.7m tonnes of CO2 per year by 2014-15 – and the landfill tax tax escalator of £8 per year will be continued for a further year, to 2014. "This is welcome and will further drive incentives for expanding and improving recycling and reuse facilities," said Friends of the Earth.
Basic countries to absorb 42% of water demand by 2030
China, India, Brazil and South Africa will require nearly half of all the water supplies for homes, industry and agriculture by 2030
In doing research for a feature related to water, I came across an almost unbelievable statistic from an otherwise sober and respectable report. A day later, I'm still unable to comprehend the scale of it; I keep re-reading it, turning the page around, and saying out aloud, so strong is the instinct that it can't quite be true.
The report is Charting our water future: Economic frameworks to inform decision-making; it was put together by consultants McKinsey & Company on behalf of the 2030 Water Resources Group, an alliance of concerned bodies including the World Bank Group and big private interests such as the Coca-Cola Company, SAB Miller and Standard Chartered Bank.
The headline point of the report is that by 2030, unless substantial changes are made to conserve water and build new supplies, there will be a 40% gap between projected water demand from a bigger, richer global population, and "accessible, reliable" supplies.
The really astonishing statistic though was this: that 42% of all projected water demand – yes, nearly half of all the water for homes, industry and agriculture – will be required by just four countries. Four. China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Read it for yourself on page 15 of the Executive Summary. I know China and India are big, and getting bigger, fast. But still ...
To avoid future water crises, we're told that gargantuan investment is needed in water infrastructure. Some of this will be big desalination plants and dams; much of it – as McKinseys stress – will be smaller, cheaper and potentially hugely beneficial improvements to irrigation ditches and pumps, to leaking pipes and the types of seeds farmers plant.
The big question is not really what will help, but how to get it done. Water pricing is the single biggest factor that would make a difference, but few politicians will campaign, or even govern, for a mandate to put up bills because water is essential. Which is, of course, the reason why they should.
It may be true that the global water problem is made up of a series of local water issues. But if 42% of demand is in China, India, Brazil and South Africa – all of which are already suffering water stresses – then perhaps the world needs to put a much, much greater focus on these four countries. Solving shortages in Rio or Shanghai will not help farmers in Tajikistan or California, but many millions of people would benefit, and could set an example to the rest of the world.
In doing research for a feature related to water, I came across an almost unbelievable statistic from an otherwise sober and respectable report. A day later, I'm still unable to comprehend the scale of it; I keep re-reading it, turning the page around, and saying out aloud, so strong is the instinct that it can't quite be true.
The report is Charting our water future: Economic frameworks to inform decision-making; it was put together by consultants McKinsey & Company on behalf of the 2030 Water Resources Group, an alliance of concerned bodies including the World Bank Group and big private interests such as the Coca-Cola Company, SAB Miller and Standard Chartered Bank.
The headline point of the report is that by 2030, unless substantial changes are made to conserve water and build new supplies, there will be a 40% gap between projected water demand from a bigger, richer global population, and "accessible, reliable" supplies.
The really astonishing statistic though was this: that 42% of all projected water demand – yes, nearly half of all the water for homes, industry and agriculture – will be required by just four countries. Four. China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Read it for yourself on page 15 of the Executive Summary. I know China and India are big, and getting bigger, fast. But still ...
To avoid future water crises, we're told that gargantuan investment is needed in water infrastructure. Some of this will be big desalination plants and dams; much of it – as McKinseys stress – will be smaller, cheaper and potentially hugely beneficial improvements to irrigation ditches and pumps, to leaking pipes and the types of seeds farmers plant.
The big question is not really what will help, but how to get it done. Water pricing is the single biggest factor that would make a difference, but few politicians will campaign, or even govern, for a mandate to put up bills because water is essential. Which is, of course, the reason why they should.
It may be true that the global water problem is made up of a series of local water issues. But if 42% of demand is in China, India, Brazil and South Africa – all of which are already suffering water stresses – then perhaps the world needs to put a much, much greater focus on these four countries. Solving shortages in Rio or Shanghai will not help farmers in Tajikistan or California, but many millions of people would benefit, and could set an example to the rest of the world.
Forests expert officially complains about 'distorted' Sunday Times article
Press Complaints Commission told that newspaper story gives impression that IPCC made false Amazon rainfall claim
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 14.28 GMT
A leading scientist has made an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over an "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" newspaper story about a supposed mistake made by the UN's panel on global warming.
Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, says the story, published by the Sunday Times in January, is wrong and should be corrected.
He says the story is misleading because it gives the impression that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a false claim in its 2007 report that reduced rainfall could wipe out up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. The Sunday Times story was widely followed up across the world, and, in the wake of the discovery of a high-profile blunder by the IPCC over the likely melting of Himalayan glaciers, helped fuel claims that the IPCC was flawed and its conclusions unreliable.
Lewis said: "There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting."
The Sunday Times piece was originally headlined "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim", though this was later changed on the website version. It said the 40% destruction figure was based on an "unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise".
The IPCC report attributed the claim to a report from campaign group WWF, which contained no reference to back the statement.
Lewis said he was contacted by the Sunday Times before the article was published and told them the IPCC's statement was "poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct". He added that "there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall". He also sent the newspaper several scientific papers that supported the claim, but were not cited by that section of the IPCC report.
Lewis says in his PCC complaint that he told The Sunday Times "the IPCC statement itself was scientifically defensible and correct, merely that [it used] the incorrect reference... To state otherwise is to materially mislead the reader."
Lewis also complains that the Sunday Times used several quotes from him in the piece to support the assertion that the IPCC report had made a false claim. "Despite repeatedly stating to the Sunday Times that there is no problem with the sentence in the IPCC report, except the reference."
Lewis said he made the PCC complaint, which runs to 31 pages, only after other attempts to raise his concerns failed. A letter to the Sunday Times, he says, was not acknowledged or printed, and a comment he posted on its website was deleted.
"As a professional scientist I have to clear this mess up, it's important to protect my reputation in terms of providing accurate scientific information to the public."
The Sunday Times said it that printed two letters in response to the article. It said it was "currently dealing with Simon Lewis's complaint and hope to resolve the issue".
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 14.28 GMT
A leading scientist has made an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over an "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" newspaper story about a supposed mistake made by the UN's panel on global warming.
Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, says the story, published by the Sunday Times in January, is wrong and should be corrected.
He says the story is misleading because it gives the impression that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a false claim in its 2007 report that reduced rainfall could wipe out up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. The Sunday Times story was widely followed up across the world, and, in the wake of the discovery of a high-profile blunder by the IPCC over the likely melting of Himalayan glaciers, helped fuel claims that the IPCC was flawed and its conclusions unreliable.
Lewis said: "There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting."
The Sunday Times piece was originally headlined "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim", though this was later changed on the website version. It said the 40% destruction figure was based on an "unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise".
The IPCC report attributed the claim to a report from campaign group WWF, which contained no reference to back the statement.
Lewis said he was contacted by the Sunday Times before the article was published and told them the IPCC's statement was "poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct". He added that "there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall". He also sent the newspaper several scientific papers that supported the claim, but were not cited by that section of the IPCC report.
Lewis says in his PCC complaint that he told The Sunday Times "the IPCC statement itself was scientifically defensible and correct, merely that [it used] the incorrect reference... To state otherwise is to materially mislead the reader."
Lewis also complains that the Sunday Times used several quotes from him in the piece to support the assertion that the IPCC report had made a false claim. "Despite repeatedly stating to the Sunday Times that there is no problem with the sentence in the IPCC report, except the reference."
Lewis said he made the PCC complaint, which runs to 31 pages, only after other attempts to raise his concerns failed. A letter to the Sunday Times, he says, was not acknowledged or printed, and a comment he posted on its website was deleted.
"As a professional scientist I have to clear this mess up, it's important to protect my reputation in terms of providing accurate scientific information to the public."
The Sunday Times said it that printed two letters in response to the article. It said it was "currently dealing with Simon Lewis's complaint and hope to resolve the issue".
Budget 2010: pale green measures that could bring 80m-tonne cut in CO2
Alistair Darling's low-carbon commitments were slim, but Treasury figures show plans for biomass and electric cars amount to big emissions savings
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 17.42 GMT
It looked like the palest of green budgets but Treasury calculations suggested that the series of small but significant transport, tax and investment measures announced could cumulatively lead to the reduction of nearly 80m tonnes of CO2 - nearly 15% of all UK climate change emissions - by 2020.
The biggest benefits, said the Treasury, should come from the new green investment bank which the government hopes will encourage a £2bn kick-start for the low carbon economy. Together with initiatives - that the chancellor did not specify in his speech - to encourage biomass burning as opposed to fossil fuels, help for electric and other ultra-low carbon vehicles, this could lead to a saving of 51m tonnes of CO2 by 2020, it says. The new bank, it said, will have an exclusive low carbon focus, and will concentrate on green transport infrastructure and offshore wind.
Fuel duty increases between 2010 and 14 should reduce emissions by another 1.7m tonnes of CO2 and the chancellor should save 2m tonnes of CO2 by committing all government departments to cut their own emissions by 30%. A £60m grant to further develop an unnamed north-east port - believed to be Blythe - to serve the burgeoning offshore North Sea wind-power industry, as well as a business package to encourage investment in low carbon technologies, should save another 8m tonnes, said the Treasury.
Transport measures like fuel duty increases and car tax exemption for zero-carbon cars should encourage businesses to choose ultra-low and zero-carbon cars and vans, so saving 18m tonnes. Increasing the tax on landfill and aggregates should reduce emissions by 4m tonnes by 2020 and shift 600,000 extra tonnes of waste from holes in the ground.
The set-piece green measure of the budget was the heavily trailed green investment bank with £2bn of capital, half from the public purse. This drew praise from many quarters.
"A single government body responsible for evaluating, assessing and backing infrastructure investments can only be a good thing," said Nick Chism, head of KPMG's global infrastructure practice. "However, the proposed fund only covers a fraction of the estimated £400bn the UK needs in infrastructure investment over the next 10 years."
"The green investment bank, alongside the Committee on Climate Change and carbon budgets, forms a central plank of the UK's now very credible decarbonisation strategy. Over time it can grow to further support British industry through a diversified range of financial products focusing on energy efficiency, smart and super-grids, renewable energy and carbon capture and storage," said Nick Mabey, chief executive of sustainable development non-profit organisation E3G.
"We're disappointed there was no action to tax business jets, which currently pay no fuel tax and in many cases pay no air passenger duty either," said Campaign for Better Transport director Stephen Joseph. "The new infrastructure bank is welcome, but it must be used to fund green urban transport schemes such as trams, as well as electric cars."
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 17.42 GMT
It looked like the palest of green budgets but Treasury calculations suggested that the series of small but significant transport, tax and investment measures announced could cumulatively lead to the reduction of nearly 80m tonnes of CO2 - nearly 15% of all UK climate change emissions - by 2020.
The biggest benefits, said the Treasury, should come from the new green investment bank which the government hopes will encourage a £2bn kick-start for the low carbon economy. Together with initiatives - that the chancellor did not specify in his speech - to encourage biomass burning as opposed to fossil fuels, help for electric and other ultra-low carbon vehicles, this could lead to a saving of 51m tonnes of CO2 by 2020, it says. The new bank, it said, will have an exclusive low carbon focus, and will concentrate on green transport infrastructure and offshore wind.
Fuel duty increases between 2010 and 14 should reduce emissions by another 1.7m tonnes of CO2 and the chancellor should save 2m tonnes of CO2 by committing all government departments to cut their own emissions by 30%. A £60m grant to further develop an unnamed north-east port - believed to be Blythe - to serve the burgeoning offshore North Sea wind-power industry, as well as a business package to encourage investment in low carbon technologies, should save another 8m tonnes, said the Treasury.
Transport measures like fuel duty increases and car tax exemption for zero-carbon cars should encourage businesses to choose ultra-low and zero-carbon cars and vans, so saving 18m tonnes. Increasing the tax on landfill and aggregates should reduce emissions by 4m tonnes by 2020 and shift 600,000 extra tonnes of waste from holes in the ground.
The set-piece green measure of the budget was the heavily trailed green investment bank with £2bn of capital, half from the public purse. This drew praise from many quarters.
"A single government body responsible for evaluating, assessing and backing infrastructure investments can only be a good thing," said Nick Chism, head of KPMG's global infrastructure practice. "However, the proposed fund only covers a fraction of the estimated £400bn the UK needs in infrastructure investment over the next 10 years."
"The green investment bank, alongside the Committee on Climate Change and carbon budgets, forms a central plank of the UK's now very credible decarbonisation strategy. Over time it can grow to further support British industry through a diversified range of financial products focusing on energy efficiency, smart and super-grids, renewable energy and carbon capture and storage," said Nick Mabey, chief executive of sustainable development non-profit organisation E3G.
"We're disappointed there was no action to tax business jets, which currently pay no fuel tax and in many cases pay no air passenger duty either," said Campaign for Better Transport director Stephen Joseph. "The new infrastructure bank is welcome, but it must be used to fund green urban transport schemes such as trams, as well as electric cars."
Budget 2010: Cider makers say 10% rise in duty is hard to swallow
Producers warn of lost investment in rural economy and threat to England's apple orchards
Steven Morris
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 19.58 GMT
West Country "real" cider drinkers tend to be a mellow, inclusive kind of crowd but Alistair Darling would have experienced a decidedly frosty welcome had he ventured out into the pubs of Bristol last night.
"This tax is a kick in the teeth, said Jan Gale, manager at the Clifton Tap, which is renowned for its strong ciders. "The new tax is aimed at binge drinkers but it is the regular, sensible drinkers who are going to be affected most.
"I'd love to get that Alistair Darling across the table from me here," said Sid Davies, a committed "real" cider drinker. "We are going to suffer because the government wants to be seen to be tackling binge drinking. I can afford to pay a few extra pence but it's just not fair."
Across the city at the Bristol Cider House, Danika and Lucy were enjoying a pint of Kingston Black Dry (7.5%: £2.50 a pint) and a hot mulled cider respectively. "I suppose it's okay if the money is going to be used to pay for hospitals and schools," said Lucy. "But can we know it's going to be used properly? We can't."
It would be wrong to suggest there was a sense of panic in the West Country - but cider fans were certainly making plans. Students at Plymouth University were organising a grand Saturday night cider party. Near Glastonbury, Naish's Cider were inundated with people wanting to buy in bulk ahead of the tax hike.
Cider makers today claimed the government was punishing success and warned that the sharp increase in duty on the drink could cause huge damage to the rural economy as well as the industry.
The industry has been booming since Gordon Brown, as chancellor, cut the duty by 2% in 2002. It was frozen for four subsequent budgets. Millions of pounds were ploughed into creating new products around the drink and encouraging it to be seen as fashionable. But today as expected, Darling announced an end to the good times. "There is a long-standing anomaly which has meant cider has been under-taxed in comparison to other alcoholic drinks. I intend to correct this. So duty on cider will increase by 10% above inflation from midnight on Sunday."
Henry Chevallier, chair of the UK's National Association of Cider Makers, said a pint could cost up to 10p more when the duty increases by 10% above inflation. Chevallier said today: "This dramatic increase could well reverse the growth we have generated in recent years. The chancellor has a big budget deficit to address and whilst it might appear obvious to increase the tax on alcohol, the reality is likely to mean reduced demand and therefore less cash in the Treasury coffers.
"Cider makers have invested millions in new orchard. Orchards take years to yield a return and the loss to the rural economy and the environment will be enormous if sales decline sufficiently and demand for English apples falls."
Bulmers, which makes 65% of the 5m hectolitres of cider sold annually in the UK, said it was "hugely disappointed". Harry Turner, cider communications manager for Bulmers, said: "We are victims of our own success. We have planted new orchards, invested in new brands and the chancellor seems to be punishing us."
Much smaller producers were also feeling bruised. Tom Oliver, of Oliver's Cider and Perry, an artisan cidermaker at Ocle Pychard, Herefordshire, was worried by the chancellor's assertion that, from September, changes would be made in the definition of cider to ensure specific strong ciders were taxed "more appropriately".
Artisan cider makers tend to make a stronger drink; Oliver's version can be up to 8%, depending on the weather.
"The larger companies will be able to adjust their recipes to make sure they are not caught by larger taxes. That is anathema to us. We like nature to take its course," said Oliver.
Andrew Quinlan, of Somerset cider producers The Orchard Pig, said it seemed unfair that craft producers might suffer because the government wanted to take a stand against binge drinkers. "We all know there aren't problem drinks, there are problem drinkers."
The tax hike even caused The Wurzels, the band famed for the hit I am a Cider Drinker, to state: "We are all very upset that scrumpy cider, being one of the few pleasures that we cherish down here on the farm … is being hit by such a tax rise. We all realise that we have to tighten the string on our trousers but we feel we are being unfairly penalised."
Steven Morris
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 19.58 GMT
West Country "real" cider drinkers tend to be a mellow, inclusive kind of crowd but Alistair Darling would have experienced a decidedly frosty welcome had he ventured out into the pubs of Bristol last night.
"This tax is a kick in the teeth, said Jan Gale, manager at the Clifton Tap, which is renowned for its strong ciders. "The new tax is aimed at binge drinkers but it is the regular, sensible drinkers who are going to be affected most.
"I'd love to get that Alistair Darling across the table from me here," said Sid Davies, a committed "real" cider drinker. "We are going to suffer because the government wants to be seen to be tackling binge drinking. I can afford to pay a few extra pence but it's just not fair."
Across the city at the Bristol Cider House, Danika and Lucy were enjoying a pint of Kingston Black Dry (7.5%: £2.50 a pint) and a hot mulled cider respectively. "I suppose it's okay if the money is going to be used to pay for hospitals and schools," said Lucy. "But can we know it's going to be used properly? We can't."
It would be wrong to suggest there was a sense of panic in the West Country - but cider fans were certainly making plans. Students at Plymouth University were organising a grand Saturday night cider party. Near Glastonbury, Naish's Cider were inundated with people wanting to buy in bulk ahead of the tax hike.
Cider makers today claimed the government was punishing success and warned that the sharp increase in duty on the drink could cause huge damage to the rural economy as well as the industry.
The industry has been booming since Gordon Brown, as chancellor, cut the duty by 2% in 2002. It was frozen for four subsequent budgets. Millions of pounds were ploughed into creating new products around the drink and encouraging it to be seen as fashionable. But today as expected, Darling announced an end to the good times. "There is a long-standing anomaly which has meant cider has been under-taxed in comparison to other alcoholic drinks. I intend to correct this. So duty on cider will increase by 10% above inflation from midnight on Sunday."
Henry Chevallier, chair of the UK's National Association of Cider Makers, said a pint could cost up to 10p more when the duty increases by 10% above inflation. Chevallier said today: "This dramatic increase could well reverse the growth we have generated in recent years. The chancellor has a big budget deficit to address and whilst it might appear obvious to increase the tax on alcohol, the reality is likely to mean reduced demand and therefore less cash in the Treasury coffers.
"Cider makers have invested millions in new orchard. Orchards take years to yield a return and the loss to the rural economy and the environment will be enormous if sales decline sufficiently and demand for English apples falls."
Bulmers, which makes 65% of the 5m hectolitres of cider sold annually in the UK, said it was "hugely disappointed". Harry Turner, cider communications manager for Bulmers, said: "We are victims of our own success. We have planted new orchards, invested in new brands and the chancellor seems to be punishing us."
Much smaller producers were also feeling bruised. Tom Oliver, of Oliver's Cider and Perry, an artisan cidermaker at Ocle Pychard, Herefordshire, was worried by the chancellor's assertion that, from September, changes would be made in the definition of cider to ensure specific strong ciders were taxed "more appropriately".
Artisan cider makers tend to make a stronger drink; Oliver's version can be up to 8%, depending on the weather.
"The larger companies will be able to adjust their recipes to make sure they are not caught by larger taxes. That is anathema to us. We like nature to take its course," said Oliver.
Andrew Quinlan, of Somerset cider producers The Orchard Pig, said it seemed unfair that craft producers might suffer because the government wanted to take a stand against binge drinkers. "We all know there aren't problem drinks, there are problem drinkers."
The tax hike even caused The Wurzels, the band famed for the hit I am a Cider Drinker, to state: "We are all very upset that scrumpy cider, being one of the few pleasures that we cherish down here on the farm … is being hit by such a tax rise. We all realise that we have to tighten the string on our trousers but we feel we are being unfairly penalised."
Embrace the endless city
The distaste for gigantic conurbations is outdated: they can be greener and freer than the countryside
Owen Hatherley
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 22.00 GMT
For the first time in history there are more people living in cities than outside them. This is just one of the striking statements in the United Nations' State of the World's Cities report, which pinpoints the development of "mega-regions" – gigantic conurbations such as the Pearl River Delta in China, which has a population of about 120 million. This report concentrates on something unprecedented but, in the horrified reactions it has caused, it has tapped into something very old.
We should not be so smug as to condemn the endless cities, not least because they started in Britain. The evils of overpopulation and pollution that invariably attend discussion of China's hyper-industrialisation were worried over in an equally hypocritical fashion 150 years ago, when Britain became the first nation to have more of its population in cities than in the countryside.
Before English urbanisation exploded in the 19th century, cities were often strictly bounded by walls. There had been the odd megalopolis – Rome, Istanbul, Baghdad – but nothing like London, which within 200 years absorbed not merely neighbouring Westminster but towns from Highgate to Croydon.
In the north of England the situation was, if anything, more pronounced – in the Cottonopolis of industrial Lancashire towns which seemed to have sprung up overnight. Just as today, this led to fears of the destruction of the countryside and the creation of a huge, uncontrollable urban proletariat which, unlike the peasantry that preceded it, could not be relied on to bow before God and King, rejecting what Marx and Engels called "rural idiocy". The very first of the "endless cities" to emerge were Greater London, Greater Manchester, the Black Country, the West Riding, Tyneside, and in Scotland, Glasgow.
In a sense, Britain is as much a megacity region as the Pearl River Delta – some demographers refer to a continuous megalopolis stretching from London to Edinburgh, with a population of 53 million. The reason why it doesn't feel like one giant city is because of 19th- and 20th-century reforms by those who wanted to tame not only the new supercities but also the unrestrained capitalism that produced them. Sometimes this was a matter of measures to make urban life bearable, as a defence against urban insurrection – sewers, public parks, and new public transport networks – but pressures to stop the growth of cities often came from the left.
What is disturbing in the UN report – something made clear in Mike Davis's book Planet of Slums – is that some of these megacities have never been made bearable. In the 19th century the rationalist dream of the ordered city that you can still see in, say, Newcastle's Grainger Town, would be rudely interrupted by the unplanned, smoke-belching, unsanitary sprawl from which it made its money; Davis points out that the new megalopolis might well be on the model of Kinshasa, which lacks the most basic urban infrastructure for its 10 million inhabitants, rather than the Blade Runner image of southern China.
Although supercities have always horrified environmentalists, they shouldn't. With their relatively short distances easily served by public transport, they are in fact greener than the countryside; a recent academic report estimated that cities produce less than two-fifths of greenhouse gas emissions. What is worrying about the "endless city" is that it may lack the public spaces and networks that make urban life superior. The cities of hyper-capitalism, with their gated communities, "urban villages", pseudo country villas and private transport, are malevolent because they try to simulate the countryside. The megalopolis need not be the cause for handwringing – but only if city dwellers claim as their own the freedoms of city life.
Owen Hatherley
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 22.00 GMT
For the first time in history there are more people living in cities than outside them. This is just one of the striking statements in the United Nations' State of the World's Cities report, which pinpoints the development of "mega-regions" – gigantic conurbations such as the Pearl River Delta in China, which has a population of about 120 million. This report concentrates on something unprecedented but, in the horrified reactions it has caused, it has tapped into something very old.
We should not be so smug as to condemn the endless cities, not least because they started in Britain. The evils of overpopulation and pollution that invariably attend discussion of China's hyper-industrialisation were worried over in an equally hypocritical fashion 150 years ago, when Britain became the first nation to have more of its population in cities than in the countryside.
Before English urbanisation exploded in the 19th century, cities were often strictly bounded by walls. There had been the odd megalopolis – Rome, Istanbul, Baghdad – but nothing like London, which within 200 years absorbed not merely neighbouring Westminster but towns from Highgate to Croydon.
In the north of England the situation was, if anything, more pronounced – in the Cottonopolis of industrial Lancashire towns which seemed to have sprung up overnight. Just as today, this led to fears of the destruction of the countryside and the creation of a huge, uncontrollable urban proletariat which, unlike the peasantry that preceded it, could not be relied on to bow before God and King, rejecting what Marx and Engels called "rural idiocy". The very first of the "endless cities" to emerge were Greater London, Greater Manchester, the Black Country, the West Riding, Tyneside, and in Scotland, Glasgow.
In a sense, Britain is as much a megacity region as the Pearl River Delta – some demographers refer to a continuous megalopolis stretching from London to Edinburgh, with a population of 53 million. The reason why it doesn't feel like one giant city is because of 19th- and 20th-century reforms by those who wanted to tame not only the new supercities but also the unrestrained capitalism that produced them. Sometimes this was a matter of measures to make urban life bearable, as a defence against urban insurrection – sewers, public parks, and new public transport networks – but pressures to stop the growth of cities often came from the left.
What is disturbing in the UN report – something made clear in Mike Davis's book Planet of Slums – is that some of these megacities have never been made bearable. In the 19th century the rationalist dream of the ordered city that you can still see in, say, Newcastle's Grainger Town, would be rudely interrupted by the unplanned, smoke-belching, unsanitary sprawl from which it made its money; Davis points out that the new megalopolis might well be on the model of Kinshasa, which lacks the most basic urban infrastructure for its 10 million inhabitants, rather than the Blade Runner image of southern China.
Although supercities have always horrified environmentalists, they shouldn't. With their relatively short distances easily served by public transport, they are in fact greener than the countryside; a recent academic report estimated that cities produce less than two-fifths of greenhouse gas emissions. What is worrying about the "endless city" is that it may lack the public spaces and networks that make urban life superior. The cities of hyper-capitalism, with their gated communities, "urban villages", pseudo country villas and private transport, are malevolent because they try to simulate the countryside. The megalopolis need not be the cause for handwringing – but only if city dwellers claim as their own the freedoms of city life.
Windfarms are stricken by the British refusal to share
If every windfarm company pledged 10% of its income to the local community, many more would be approved
Listening to the radio yesterday, I remembered something I've been meaning to get off my chest. The PM programme carried a report from Westray in the Orkney islands, where a 900kW wind turbine was approved without a single planning objection (BBC News of Ten has more). Given that it stands 67m high on a mostly flat island, how did this happen?
It's simple: the turbine is owned by the residents. They raised £1.5m in loans and grants. Once the bank has been paid off, they'll be making £200,000 a year.
I first came across the concept of community windfarms a few years ago, when I met a man in Scotland wearing a wind turbine lapel badge. I told him it was a sight I didn't often see.
"Lots of people in my village wear them. We love our turbines."
He explained that, though the local windfarm was built by a commercial developer, the firm had done a deal with them, pledging a proportion of the profits to the community. Every year the village received between £100,000 and £150,000 and was able to finance its entire wishlist of community projects, without any of the usual struggles for lottery money or council grants. The money could be spent one year on building a youth club, the next on refurbishing the library, the year after that on rescuing the public toilets. His village had, in effect, been insulated from the budget cuts blighting so many rural communities. The villagers decided between them how the money should be spent.
One word explains the massive difference between the deployment of wind power in the UK and in Denmark: ownership. The public acceptance of windfarms in Denmark is largely due to the fact that most of them are owned by communities or co-operatives. The contrast to the UK could scarcely be greater, where communities fight tooth and nail against them, and planning objections are the major reason why the UK is struggling to meet its renewables targets.
There's a handful of community schemes already running in the UK and a few dozen in the pipeline, but the uptake here has been very slow. The problem is that we just don't do co-operation in the UK. We subscribe to the hyper-capitalist myth that nothing beats individual enterprise. The Danes don't, which is why we eat Danish bacon and Lurpak butter in the UK. Long ago, the farmers there decided to work together. They sold their produce through co-operatives, which gave them advantages of scale and reduced the costs of marketing. The same goes for horticulture in the Netherlands, which is why the UK has never been able to compete on that field either. Our farmers are perennially held back by the British refusal to share. Windfarm developers in the UK are stricken by the same disease.
One of the few benefits of the UK's extortionate feed-in tariffs is that they might encourage communities to set up their own large wind developments. Unfortunately the government expects that most of the money being extracted from our electricity bills will instead be spent on largely-useless rooftop solar PV. This is partly because most people in this country don't live in places where they could build a windfarm (or where there are useful ambient energy resources of any kind) and partly because, suffering from the British disease, we'd rather wholly own an inefficient technology than share ownership of an efficient one. I wouldn't have fought the feed-in tariffs if they had been reserved for projects like Westray's.
But even accounting for British culture, there is surely scope for partial community ownership wherever a windfarm is proposed. I suspect that if every time a company applied to build one it pledged 10 or 20% of the income to the local community, a heck of a lot more would get approved. The meanness of the developers has been their undoing. Determined to keep all the profits to themselves, they give local people no incentive to welcome their proposals and every incentive to oppose them. So instead of getting 90% they get nothing, and the UK remains stuck in the fossil fuel age.
www.monbiot.com
Listening to the radio yesterday, I remembered something I've been meaning to get off my chest. The PM programme carried a report from Westray in the Orkney islands, where a 900kW wind turbine was approved without a single planning objection (BBC News of Ten has more). Given that it stands 67m high on a mostly flat island, how did this happen?
It's simple: the turbine is owned by the residents. They raised £1.5m in loans and grants. Once the bank has been paid off, they'll be making £200,000 a year.
I first came across the concept of community windfarms a few years ago, when I met a man in Scotland wearing a wind turbine lapel badge. I told him it was a sight I didn't often see.
"Lots of people in my village wear them. We love our turbines."
He explained that, though the local windfarm was built by a commercial developer, the firm had done a deal with them, pledging a proportion of the profits to the community. Every year the village received between £100,000 and £150,000 and was able to finance its entire wishlist of community projects, without any of the usual struggles for lottery money or council grants. The money could be spent one year on building a youth club, the next on refurbishing the library, the year after that on rescuing the public toilets. His village had, in effect, been insulated from the budget cuts blighting so many rural communities. The villagers decided between them how the money should be spent.
One word explains the massive difference between the deployment of wind power in the UK and in Denmark: ownership. The public acceptance of windfarms in Denmark is largely due to the fact that most of them are owned by communities or co-operatives. The contrast to the UK could scarcely be greater, where communities fight tooth and nail against them, and planning objections are the major reason why the UK is struggling to meet its renewables targets.
There's a handful of community schemes already running in the UK and a few dozen in the pipeline, but the uptake here has been very slow. The problem is that we just don't do co-operation in the UK. We subscribe to the hyper-capitalist myth that nothing beats individual enterprise. The Danes don't, which is why we eat Danish bacon and Lurpak butter in the UK. Long ago, the farmers there decided to work together. They sold their produce through co-operatives, which gave them advantages of scale and reduced the costs of marketing. The same goes for horticulture in the Netherlands, which is why the UK has never been able to compete on that field either. Our farmers are perennially held back by the British refusal to share. Windfarm developers in the UK are stricken by the same disease.
One of the few benefits of the UK's extortionate feed-in tariffs is that they might encourage communities to set up their own large wind developments. Unfortunately the government expects that most of the money being extracted from our electricity bills will instead be spent on largely-useless rooftop solar PV. This is partly because most people in this country don't live in places where they could build a windfarm (or where there are useful ambient energy resources of any kind) and partly because, suffering from the British disease, we'd rather wholly own an inefficient technology than share ownership of an efficient one. I wouldn't have fought the feed-in tariffs if they had been reserved for projects like Westray's.
But even accounting for British culture, there is surely scope for partial community ownership wherever a windfarm is proposed. I suspect that if every time a company applied to build one it pledged 10 or 20% of the income to the local community, a heck of a lot more would get approved. The meanness of the developers has been their undoing. Determined to keep all the profits to themselves, they give local people no incentive to welcome their proposals and every incentive to oppose them. So instead of getting 90% they get nothing, and the UK remains stuck in the fossil fuel age.
www.monbiot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
