Climate Campers dislike fences

Preemptive arrests and an end to the touchy feely policing of Blackheath have not been able to stop those crazy kids of Climate Camp from advancing on another coal powered monstrosity. Salut.



More videos, photo stream, Indymedia timeline, and Indymedia selection.

Good news day!

E-ON has shelved it's plans for Kingsnorth power station. Greenpeace says;

"This development is extremely good news for the climate and in a stroke significantly reduces the chances of an unabated Kingsnorth plant ever being built.

"The case for new coal is crumbling, with even E.ON now accepting it's not currently economic to build new plants. The huge diverse coalition of people who have campaigned against Kingsnorth because of the threat it posed to the climate should take heart that emissions from new coal are now even less likely in Britain."

He added: "Ed Miliband [the environment secretary] now has a golden opportunity to rule out all emissions from new coal as a sign of Britain's leadership before the key Copenhagen climate meeting. With E.ON's announcement he's now got an open goal."

And then we have the news that "four of the largest cattle companies in the world are joining forces to ban the purchase of cattle from areas of cleared rainforest in Brazil." Greenpeace says;

"The companies are committing to "zero deforestation in their supply chains", which is a really tangible and permanent commitment to take. This adds to the measures that we've been successful in bringing in to protect the Amazon - there's also an industry-wide moratorium on soya produced on deforested areas.

"The effect of having four of the largest players in the global cattle sector committing to wipe out Amazon deforestation in their supply chain is massive. It fundamentally changes the economic dynamics of the cattle ranching sector. Up until now, the cheap Amazon land and the promise of extra profit from selling timber was encouraging ranchers to expand into the rainforest. Now there's an incentive for farmers to use their land in smarter ways and buy up land that's not in the forest."

Drops in the ocean perhaps, but it's good to remember there are little victories sometimes.

Saving the Vestas jobs

Way back in April when Vestas announced significant lay offs in the UK (whilst hiring in other parts of the world, including the US) I noted that the company blamed the excessive planning regulations in this country that prevented orders getting filled. With the best will in the world there's little point in making turbines that will never be put into operation.

Vestas' Chief Exec. said; "The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there... In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge. This is outside of Whitehall territory."

We know there is an element of truth to this but there are two problems. The first is that Vestas is completing UK orders for 2,700 turbines using its factories in Germany and Denmark, which appears to be more about outsourcing the work than the orders not existing in the first place.

The second problem comes from today's Times which reports that the British Wind Energy Association (of which Vestas is a member) has released a report that directly contradicts the company's line saying that in the next three years the number of operational turbines will have doubled.

Although the Association makes it clear that 2020 targets on renewable energy may not be met it is still clear that turbine production should be progressing at a pace given the current number of orders. In which case Vestas are not making their business decision based on local opposition to new wind farms (even though that opposition does exist and can be very strong).

The government has offered Vestas six million quid in order to conduct new research at its existing site in Newport. This would involve creating green research jobs at the expense of losing existing green manufacturing jobs. In effect the government is supporting Vestas' plan to lay off the Newport workers but retain the site as a research centre. Why is public money is being given to the largest turbine company in the world to research its own industry?

The Green Party has put forward an imaginative plan to use the Sustainable Communities Act to allow the government to support the establishment of a workers co-op which would take over the running of the factories. Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, said:

"If the government is serious about tackling climate change, helping to protect the future of UK manufacturing, and safeguarding local jobs, it must act now to keep the Vestas facility open for business.

"By submitting a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act for a workers' co-op, the Council can demand that the government provides the investment and assurances necessary to save this facility - on the basis that it plays a crucial economic and environmental role in the local community.

"Failure to keep the Vestas plant open will represent a spectacular failure by the government to match its rhetoric on green jobs with real policy action. It should be seizing the opportunity to create a renewable energy revolution that can see us through a transition towards a more environmentally and economically stable economy. Allowing the IoW plant to close now would be a massive embarrassment for ministers - and devastating for the IoW's workers."

I have to say I'm impressed by this plan which uses pre-existing legislation and process to do something quite radical that can be enacted almost immediately. It's an enormously practical solution that's even implementable by Labour in the way that rhetoric about nationalisation, for example, couldn't be no matter how programatically correct.

The ongoing occupation by Vestas workers has been crucial in pushing this out of news obscurity right back into the media headlights. Even the government has had to shuffle its feet in embarrassment, which is sadly only a small crumb of pleasure.

Offering practical solutions to save the Vestas plants seems to be the exact opposite of Labour's approach which is to pay Vestas to replace the workforce. I'd add we also need to do what we can to improve the chances of renewable technologies becoming operational which means overcoming the nimbies with a real counter-movement to transform society.

Brown out - Green power

It's been announced that Vestas, the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines is to cut 1,900 jobs, mainly from the UK and Denmark. This is exactly the opposite of what should be happening right now and the government should step in to ensure that these vital jobs are not just saved but bolstered with new employment in the manufacturing of renewable technologies.

However, the news comes as the company records that their profits are up - so why make 9% of your workforce redundant if you're making money? Well Vestas claims it has an overcapacity - in other words governments and energy companies, mainly across Northern Europe, aren't buying enough of their products.

The company is not cutting jobs in the US because the government there has increased its commitment to renewable energy and is in the process of placing orders, but it has shelved plans to open up a new factory in Wales because it is particularly frustrated with the government in the UK.

The chief executive of Vestas told the Guardian;

"The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there... In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge. This is outside of Whitehall territory.

"People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore."

So instead of ensuring that manufacturing jobs are secure and enabling the opening of a new factory in Newport the government (both local and national) have put so many barriers in the way that this can't happen at the very time when it is crucial for the economy that we avoid lay offs where we can. It's not even that the company has been hit by the crunch - this is purely a Brown made disaster.

Here in the UK we shackle the renewable industry with red tape and a luke-warm commitment that consists largely of press releases in order to free up the government to press for its favourite forms of ecological destruction, coal and nuclear. Absolute madness.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that if we want green power we're going to have to get Brown out.

Going nuclear: in discussion with Chris Goodall

Quite a few of the readers of this blog will be aware there has been a mini-storm over nuclear power recently, with a group of reasonably high profile environmental campaigners calling for a rethink on the question of nuclear power. One of the threads that helped form the green movement were the anti-nuclear campaigns and organisations like the Green Party take a very clear and uncompromising approach in their opposition to new nuclear power stations.

I thought it would be worthwhile opening up a discussion on this issue with Chris Goodall, who is the Green Party's parliamentary candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon and one of those voices calling for a new approach on nuclear.


CHRIS: Reducing the carbon emissions from electricity generation is vital. The Climate Change Committee showed in December that unless the UK almost wholly decarbonised electricity production we have no real prospect of meeting our emissions reductions targets. I haven’t seen any Greens disputing this.

Today about 95% of our electricity is made using fossil fuels. So in the space of about 20 years we have to utterly transform an industry with annual turnover of about £50bn. This is, to put it carefully, a very substantial challenge.

That challenge is currently becoming more difficult not less. Coal prices have collapsed. Carbon pollution permits now cost a third of what they did a year ago. So coal is the fuel of choice for power generators. As all Greens know, this is the worst possible outcome for climate change.

At the same time as coal revival, renewables have suffered reversals. The big offshore wind projects are all struggling to get financed. Any proposed Severn Barrage will suffer in a similar way. Venture capital is not available for many of the most exciting wave and tidal technologies. It seems to me that Greens need to reassess nuclear because we need all the non-carbon sources of electricity that we can lay our hands upon.

About a third of the UK’s existing power generation capacity is due to close by the end of the next decade or shortly after. If the UK doesn’t get replacement low carbon technologies running by about 2016, the lights will (occasionally) go out. It’s a clich矇, but it’s almost certainly true. We will also be forced to keep the old dinosaurs of coal-fired power stations open. In my opinion, it is irresponsible of us not to ask ourselves the question – which is the lesser of these two evils, coal or nuclear? I regretfully conclude that the answer is nuclear. (More details of this argument on Carbon Commentary)

Several people have said to me over the last few days that Green policy is to focus on energy efficiency, principally house insulation. This is good of course, but people may not be aware that very little electricity is used for home or business heating. (Some people off the gas grid use electricity for heating and some factories and warehouses use radiant heating but this is broadly true). Electricity, already about 38% of the UK’s total emissions, is likely to become more important rather than less as we switch to electric cars over the next decade. We are going to need more electricity, not less, and ensuring that this power is made with minimal amounts of CO2 emissions is a vital aim.

I hope I am not being dogmatic about this. I’d love to see a carefully thought-through plan that bases the UK electricity industry around renewables. (My book Ten Technologies to Save the Planet gives one view of how this might be possible). But Greens like me also need to recognize the huge public opposition to onshore wind, the escalating costs of offshore and the very difficult issues of how to connect large scale renewables to the electricity grid. Our rate of progress on decarbonisation of electricity is so slow that I am personally finding it difficult to work out how 400 terawatt hours of electricity is going to be produced each year without nuclear power.


JIM: The first thing I want to say is that I don't think you're being dogmatic and you’ve been far more nuanced on this than the Independent made you out to be. There are a number of points where we disagree though.

We don’t have space to list where we agree so I’m going to take it as a given that we both want to radically increase the amount of energy we get from renewable sources whilst drastically cutting our level of energy consumption. It seems to me the points of disagreement are more about how much we can cut and how significant a contribution renewables can make to our energy mix.

We are also looking at different time scales. I’d say that if we haven’t already made massive inroads into this problem in twenty years time we’re in deep trouble – and whilst we’re waiting for nuclear to come online we’re still contributing to it. One big advantage of renewables over nuclear is how quickly they can be brought online so that we can make near immediate contributions to the cut in our national carbon footprint.

There are long term problems with nuclear power that we cannot simply dismiss. Whilst I see the logic behind regretfully discounting the long term problems of nuclear waste, an inheritance that we are leaving countless generations in order to survive the current crisis, there are other problems that can’t be put aside so easily.

If the pessimists are right then no matter how good we are at cutting our emissions now we will still be subject to unpredictable weather and rising sea levels. The vulnerability of nuclear power stations to climate disaster (or terrorist attack) does not make them safe neighbors. Unfortunately in times like these this is something we have to insure against, by ensuring that our energy sources do not have the capacity to poison the environment still further should the worst happen.

More importantly nuclear is not carbon neutral so we have a problem if we want it to help us decarbonise our economy. The carbon footprint of building and maintaining nuclear power plants has been consistently underestimated in the media and as the uranium supply gets lower the mining footprint increases [1].

Creating a reliance on an uncommon material [2] not found in significant amounts in this country is dangerous indeed, opening ourselves up to severe market fluctuations and the kind of energy blackmail that Russia has demonstrated with its gas supply. The cost of a resource that we cannot rely on in even the medium term as a global energy crisis kicks in is not good forward planning. More than that climate change requires global solutions and we are simply not going to see the whole world taking up nuclear power. We don’t trust most of the countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America to have it – but also there are not the raw resources to sustain a global take up of nuclear in a safe and sustainable manner.

What are we going to do to help China and India meet their energy needs in a sustainable way? How are we going to make the maximum possible contribution to a global reduction in carbon emissions? If we’re not investing heavily in the technology and production of renewable energy to become a major exporter of the cheapest, most effective technologies possible we’ll be putting our own house in order as the planet plummets towards disaster. If we’re not prioritising renewables we could be in danger of taking a far too parochial view of an international crisis.

But you’re right that there are significant obstacles. The energy industry is powerful and obstructive, the financial crisis has heaped further problems upon us and the government is simply committed to doing it anyway. I don’t think we should accept a fait accompli though when nuclear has so many inherent problems in such dangerous times. I don’t have the space for a full discussion on how we overcome these problems, or to deal with all your points, but I would say that if the private energy industry wont play ball perhaps its time to nationalise. If energy, that crucial public resource, is not brought under democratic control and taken out of the hands of vested interests we may well be unable to meet the challenge that faces us anyway.

To my mind if the government is determined to take a bad course of action it’s up to us to help it change its mind. We can’t wait for nuclear, nor allow it to distract us, we don’t have the time when we could be making real advances by focusing on energy efficiency and renewable technology – not just for us, but for the world.


CHRIS: I’m sure that we are not very far apart. I shall regard it as a failure if we see more nuclear power stations in the UK. The risks are as you say. However, I'm very unsure that the UK electorate is willing to pay the price for an energy policy that is reliant on renewables or to accept occasional interruptions to electricity supply.

In the last few weeks I have had several conversations with Oxford Greens who passionately believe that we should avoid both coal and nuclear at all costs. Rather than have electricity generated by these fuels, these people have said we should accept that we will have to make do with much more limited and erratic supplies of electricity for homes and businesses.

My concern is that this stance will be unacceptable to all but a minute fraction of the UK population. By their resolute and principled stance against nuclear, these Greens are implicitly encouraging the use of more coal. When I make this point, my Oxford colleagues don’t disagree with my analysis. It is better to be ethically right, they say, than to compromise on such an important issue. I profoundly disagree.

All power to the people

Energy policy has never been more central to the public interest than it is today. It's always been at the heart of the economy and social equality, or lack of it, but today if we continue to use energy in the way we have been it will pose an existential threat to our glorious civilisation.

Yet, as a society, we leave almost every aspect of our energy production in the hands of private corporations, hampering our ability to direct and control this absolutely vital industry. Whilst there are snouts in the trough changing course on energy isn't just made more difficult - it's nigh on impossible.

Of course, I'm for the renationalisation of public utilities in general. Mainly it's the arguments around efficiency, democratic acountability and cutting out the middle man fat cats that I find most persuasive - but with energy there is something far more fundamental going on.

Climate change means we have to fundamentally change the way that we are using natural resources right now. Those with vested interests in the current structures cannot help but act as a conservative force on the radical reforms required. It's impossible for them, even when they agree in theory, to overcome their sectional interests, even when it might mean a loss of profitability in the long run (see Stern).

I genuinely believe that even with the most progressive board they will find it impossible to put the planet before their profits - even if it were legal for them to do so. We wouldn't leave the conduct of a war in private hands, and climate change threatens more lives than any war we've fought in to date.

The example of historic clean air acts proves that government intervention is essential to bring the self destructive tendencies of private enterprise to heel. But whilst robust government legislation would be more than welcome it seems to me that the problem is so urgent and the industries in need of such a comprehensive overhaul that we need to take things far further - to bring energy production in house through the nationalisation of the utility companies.

As we speak the first day of Green Party conference has just finished and I was pleased to see that they passed a motion recognising the need for more democratic control. The motion (on economics C01 amendment 2 for those who want to look it up in the conference guide (pdf)) states that we are for;

"Taking all energy distribution into public ownership and ensuring that energy production becomes a mixture of public and private enterprises... The distribution mains for electricity and gas will be brought into a fully accountable public sector. Energy production would be a mixture of public and private enterprises."

I think this is a very positive and pragmatic motion which, if enacted, would dramatically increase our purchase on what actually happens within the industry allowing energy to be more properly integrated into the wider strategy of saving the world.

Obviously, it talks about a mixed economy and I'd go further than that, but I accept there is a role for the social entrepreneurs (for example) who've set up renewable technology companies or micro-generation businesses and they aren't top of my list for bringing under the People's Commissariat for Power although I do think we have to recognise that they only exist because the government has refused to take the issue of renewable technologies as seriously as the situation has demanded.

PS: some of the attendees of conference are "twittering" follow them here over the next few days.

Obama's got the energy

Well, the McCain corporation like oil. That's their energy strategy. Mmmmm, taste it, drill it, burn it - it's all good compadre.

Our man Obama, now he think oil's OK, but maybe there's a bigger picture too. That's why he's calling for a "green jobs revolution". He's promising a one hundred and fifty billion dollar "Apollo Project" that would create five million "green collar jobs". As the Independent states "There is growing acceptance from economists in the US that a Green "New Deal" should be a fundamental part of the solution to the financial crisis and to America's long-term security concerns."

Obama wants to see the US drastically reduce the amount of oil it uses so that in ten years it has cut oil consumption by the amount that it currently imports from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. That's quite a bit, particularly as it involves turning a year on year increase in consumption into a year on year decrease.

Now, if you read the detail of the plan (factsheet, pdf), you'll notice two things, and depending on where you are coming from I guess determines which way round you'll notice them.

One thing you'll notice is the Blueprint for Change falls short of where we need to be. Well short. He does not commit to tackling capitalism, red in tooth and claw. He sees nuclear as part of the solution. He has no strategy for fundamentally addressing an oil economy, just managing it.

Hopefully you'll notice something else too, the scale of his ambitions. By the end of his first term he wants 10% of America's energy to be from renewable sources. That's quite a leap. By 2020 he wants to see energy consumption reduced by 15%, and by 2050 he wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. It's all there in black and white, even though he's running for President of the United States.

When he talks about creating livable and sustainable communities, and a massive program of home insulation for low income families you know, I don't think that's nothing. There is a significant positive shift taking place.

He explicitly states that he wants to "make the US a leader on climate change" and I don't think he means that in the same way George Bush thought the US should contribute the most greenhouse gasses. The document's eight pages long so go ahead read it for yourself if you have a moment.

If you do I'd like you to notice that he wants to help fund his plans through windfall taxes on the oil companies and others and he wants to curb financial speculation in the sector. Both of which involve tackling powerful vested interests. That's quite an interesting move.

You might prefer to watch the blue print for change video (two and half minutes) which lays out the plan in a clear and simple way. These videos are a good idea that's worth copying incidentally. They are a series of twelve (I think) youtube videos laying out neatly and without fuss a specific policy area. Well, it really works for me.

Of course Obama's first organising job in the eighties was working for Ralph Nader promoting recycling in Harlem so he's not new to this green lark, but I think what's becoming clear is that Obama is more than just "not McCain", although that's really important too. His plans for a green jobs revolution is central to any strategy that's to combat climate change in an era of economic problems, let's hope he gets the chance to implement it.

Who's in bed with the oil industry?

Literally in this case. It appears that the government and the oil industry are unethical. I know, who *would* have thunk it? An industry directly responsible for world ecological and social problems on a hither too unseen scale - and you say they don't do ethics? Me oh my!

For those of you who'd like the gos it seems that a whole bunch of US government officials responsible for the ""royalty-in-kind" programme under which energy companies barter oil and gas to the government in return for permission to drill on federal land" have been caught with their drill bits in the slick stuff.

It seems that, contrary to expectations, the US civil service is just one long party with illegal drugs on tap, and sexual favours a plenty - just so long as you're working with this season's favoured rapacious conglomerates.

So endemic was this problem that one in three Minerals Management Service employees were involved in what a top level report describes as a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" which was "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards."

According to Think Progress "Gregory Smith, Program Director of the Royalty in Kind Program, referred to cocaine as “office supplies” and rewarded his employees for obtaining it for him." This reward not only included paying for the drugs and extra sex on the side but office "performance awards", which could be considerable amounts of tax payers' money.

One curious defence from some of those accused of mis-deeds has been to say that the sex and drugs were all part of doing their job with due diligence. "Employees said they felt that in order to effectively perform their official duties, they needed to interact in social settings with industry representatives to obtain 'market intelligence'" Well, that's a good line if you're ever in a hole - but I can't guarantee its efficacy.

I think it's time for those in charge to take the drill bit between the teeth and call this for what it is - an orgy of corruption from a government in the pockets of big oil. Odds on that happening? Not this side of November certainly.

Got the power?

The cost of living is certainly soaring, not just in the UK but all over the world. But still, when Cambridge resident Alison Turner received her bill from NPower it wasn't just the fact that she was on a prepayment meter and shouldn't be getting bills at all that shocked her. It was also the way the bill was for £90,454,217. Come on NPower, that's no way to pay for the director's new Highland Mansion (read full story in the Cambridge Evening News).

NPower is part of the German owned RWE consortium and have hit the headlines earlier in the year for its sales team who were misleading those it hoped to win over to NPower.

This year NPower's profits are up 41%, and the bills are up by 17% - which all seems to be standard nowadays. The energy crisis seems to be a perfect excuse for those who own the corporations to put the screws on the rest of us. So they rake in the money whilst cutting off 69 homes per week last year. In cash that means last year's profits were £544 million, privatisation is just the gift that keeps on giving for some.

The cost of fuel is one of those things that hits the poorest, hardest - particularly the old. Scott wrote this piece a little while ago on how NPower approaches the poorest of its costumers and Peter Reydt wrote this interesting article on the kind of consequences that rising fuel prices have on the poor.

If the oil companies, gas companies, electricity companies et al are all making record profits, and they are, why do we seem to think that the price rises are out of their hands?

Note: John B disagrees with me - over at The Sharpener.