Greenpeace UK blog

Top 10 weird wildlife: immortal jellyfish, gender-swapping fish and pink dolphins

Willie — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:09:42 +0000

Today is International Day for Biological Diversity. An opportunity to celebrate and wonder at the amazingly diverse variety of species we share the planet with. This year it has a water theme, so we’ve been having some fun over on Twitter, and here’s our pick of the weirdest and most wondrous watery wildlife you definitely need to know about.

1. Clownfish
It’s the untold story of Finding Nemo that clownfish change gender. When the dominant female in a group is removed, a male steps up to take charge. So in the film, Nemo’s dad should have had a more dramatic storyline!

2. Pink dolphins
Amazonian river dolphins are pink. But they don’t know that because they are blind. There’s not a lot of point being able to see when you live in murky water and echo-locate

3. Arctic worm
Worms that live in the ice and turn to goo when the temperature gets above freezing point. Who needs science fiction?

4. Spirit bear
The black bears that live in the Great Bear Rainforest are unusually coloured. Some are almost polar bear-white. These spirit bears gorge on salmon which brings nutrients all the way from the sea, up the river, into the forest, and fertilise the trees.

5. Narwhal
Turns out that that wacky tusk on these Arctic whales isn’t just for show: it’s a super-sized super-sensory organ. Make your own jokes...

6. Barnacles
Barnacles are stuck. They don’t get out much. So they have exceptionally long penises to reach other barnacles, so they can, you know, make baby barnacles.

7. Arctic tern
The only wild bird to be recorded on all the world’s continents, the Arctic tern migrates from the Arctic to the Antarctic to get two summers every year.

8. Mimic octopus
Is it a bird, is it a plane? Chances are it could be a mimic octopus. Changing shape, colour, size and movement to pretend to be all sorts of ocean critters. As if being an octopus wasn’t awesome enough already?

9. Immortal jellyfish
The never-ending story of this gelatinous wonder is that it doesn’t have to die. Able to convert back into larvae this jellyfish is immortal. In the right conditions, they may take over the world. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

10. Shrew portaloo
Perhaps the most awesome evolutionary solution in nature – the shrew whose loo is a carnivorous pitcher plant. As if it weren’t already amazing, the pitcher plant has evolved to devour the poo. Everyone’s a winner.

(The shrew loo made it through as ‘watery’ because of the plumbing element.)

Risky business: How shareholders, pensions and councils are being exposed to the risks of Arctic oil

Charlie Kronick — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:22:38 +0000

The Arctic Sunrise and the Esperanza intercept Cairn Energy's controversial Arctic rig

Drilling for oil in the Arctic – is it literally crazy? Because it is driving some of the biggest companies in the world to exhibit what can only be described as irrational behaviour. The end of easily accessible oil from conventional sources is leading international oil companies (IOCs) to consider ever more extreme forms of oil and gas extraction – with the Arctic Ocean being among the last frontiers.

In addition to the increasing inaccessibility of conventional oil and gas reserves, IOCs face a threat from the rise of “resource sovereignty” in Latin America, the Middle East and Russia – where not surprisingly, governments are increasingly asserting control over the natural resources located in their territories. In the case of Russia, IOCs have entered a number of joint ventures with Russian national oil and gas companies, Rosneft and Gazprom. BP has also become Rosneft’s largest independent shareholder. These alliances aim to trade western capital along with technical capability and expertise for access to oil and gas concessions in the Russian Arctic and continental shelf.

In 2012, Shell made a mess of their attempts to drill in the Chukchi Sea . The multiple operational snafus and the company's failure to meet US regulatory requirements served as a warning about just how risky it is to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic.[i] Shell's experience in the Alaskan Arctic has had a knock on effect - for now at least, both ConocoPhillips and Statoil have shelved plans for drilling in the far north. However, at the same time, yet more alliances with Russian companies are being announced.

These alliances expose IOCs and their shareholders (including pension fund members and even council tax payers) to enormous risks. These include poor environmental and safety performance, questionable corporate governance, an unpredictable political, legal and economic regime and a serious lack of corporate transparency. One example leaps out: The Kolskaya rig, hired by Gazprom subsidiary Gazflot, capsized and sank on its way back from drilling in the Okhotsk Sea on 18 December 2011, killing 53 of the 67 crew.

Greenpeace, in collaboration with Platform and ShareAction, has published a report examining and exposing these risks, leaving investors with some tough questions to ask – and the companies like Shell almost certainly unable to answer them.

Read the investor briefing: Russian roulette: International oil company risk in the Russian Arctic

Read the full report: Russian roulette: International oil company risk in the Russian Arctic

[i] See FairPensions, Greenpeace, and Platform 2013 ‘Repeated Misadventures: Key questions for Shell on its Alaskan Arctic programme’.

Why Indonesia's deforestation ban isn't enough to protect its forests

Richardg — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:32:08 +0000

Clearance of forested tiger habitat in Sumatra, Indonesia

The president of Indonesia has banned deforestation for another couple of years. This is great news - but we aren't celebrating just yet, because most of its rainforest remains unprotected.

Earlier this week, the Indonesian president extended the country's deforestation ban. It gives us two more crucial years to get a grip on the pulp and paper and palm oil companies that are trashing the forests and pushing animals like the Sumatran tiger to the edge of extinction.

So why aren't we celebrating?

Unfortunately, the deforestation ban is still full of loopholes. Almost half of Indonesia’s primary forests and peatlands still have no protection from chainsaw-happy companies.

This is because Indonesia's deforestation ban is not really a ban on deforestation. It's a ban on new concessions (which are permits to log, mine or set up a palm oil plantation on a particular patch of land) for areas of 'primary' forest and carbon-rich peatlands.

Most of Indonesia's rainforest has been damaged by illegal logging, mining or forest fires. These forests are not covered by the deforestation ban. Nor does the ban extend to concessions that had already been allocated.

If a company had already been given permission to log an area of forest before the ban came in, then it would be legally entitled to chop down all the trees, ban or no ban.

Enforcement is also a major problem. Local officials are often unwilling to prosecute companies that are logging illegally. If the government is serious about protecting the forests, it must enforce its forestry laws and make corruption something you only read about in history books.

We're running out of time to save Indonesia's forests. Every year, there is a little less jungle - and a lot more plantation.

That's why I'd rather have a weak deforestation ban than a forest destroyers' free-for-all. Just don't ask me to put on my party hat until those loopholes are closed and the forests - and the people, the tigers and the orang-utans which depend on them - are protected.

Deal or no deal on Europe's fishing laws?

Willie — Mon, 20 May 2013 16:47:55 +0000

Will politicians net a fair fishing deal?

Image caption:

Will politicians net a fair fishing deal?

While considering how to write a blog on the latest developments on Europe’s bumpy road to fisheries reform, I decided to take a step back in time. Eleven months ago I wrote this blog explaining where the discussions were at, what was still on the table, and outlining a number of areas of concern.

Fast forward to June 2013 and the (extended) process to reform the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is in a remarkably similar place after another crucial, but opaque, meeting of EU fisheries ministers last week.

The pessimist in me (who gets out quite often, as it happens) would say that this showed a lack of ambition, a lack of progress, failure of an ever-extended process, and ever more spin from the politicians involved.

But having been around for a number of year,s I know now that no EU legislative process is a fun-fest. EU law-making and Brussels politicking is rarely as upbeat as the average Eurovision song contest entry, and the outcome of votes and horse-trading is likely to be even more complicated and infuriating.

In physics they refer to the second law of thermodynamics, where things show a tendency to fall apart and get more chaotic over time (if you have 5 minutes you can listen to Professor Brian Cox explain that with sandcastles).

EU legislative processes are not much different. Left to their own devices, they will get weaker.

So I have to say that I am sceptically optimistic that so many crucial elements of the Common Fisheries Policy reform are still on the table, since it means the pressures and temptations to water down, block and obfuscate have been countered by pressure to deliver real reform.

That pressure has come from real people. Like you.

We saw evidence of that last week in the pressure our own minister, Richard Benyon, was under. We have seen environmental groups, celebrity chefs, coastal fishermen, retailers and others come together to demand that ministers stand firm and deliver what is needed. We have seen an unprecedented response to public pressure in February’s vote in the European parliament, on an issue that has become a political hot potato.

That potato has now been tossed back and forth between Europe’s parliamentarians, and Europe’s governments. It’s now well and truly in the air.

Last week’s meeting was supposed to give a ‘final’ negotiating position for Europe’s fisheries ministers collectively: the agreed line in the sand from them on what they will accept in CFP reform. From the perspective of most NGOs, that agreed position was weak.

It is now up to closed door three-way conversations between representatives of the EU parliament (who have a progressive position), the ministers, and the European Commission to see if an agreement can be reached. If it can, there will need to be compromise. How much from each side is yet to be seen, so it’s hard to predict what it could look like.

Yes, we should be wary that there are attempts to water down a discard ban, but we shouldn’t be surprised either. Perhaps we should be more surprised that the general concept of phasing out discards on commercially fished EU species is still in there at this stage.

We should also be encouraged that there is still an ambition in there to rebuild fish stocks, but rightly alarmed that there seems to be no agreed process on how to get there.

Deals, derogations and horse trading were always going to happen. We might not like it, but we can still strive for the best possible outcome in the laws drawn up, and then hold our governments to account in delivering them in the way they were intended.

It’s sometimes easy to hide behind the complexity and frustrations caused by Brussels, but we shouldn’t let that be an excuse. As we argued in court, there is much that can be done at a national level to make things better and start redressing the balance.

If we want to have healthy seas and coastal communities in the decades to come, then we need to decide what we value, and what we support. Then we need to make sure our ministers don’t just issue a press release from Brussels en route to the Eurostar, but they actually make a difference when they get home too.

Now is the time to keep up the pressure, because we need the best deal possible, for our seas, and those who depend on them. Show your support.

I Love Arctic meets Arctic Council

Markus Power — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:59:38 +0000

Hand over of 'I Love Arctic' photo-books to two Permanent Participants of Arctic Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic Council.

Image caption:

Hand over of 'I Love Arctic' photo-books to two Permanent Participants of Arctic Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic Council.

The air was abuzz this morning in Kiruna. As delegates and press were mingling in the breakfast hall, Foreign Ministers were entering their policed motorcades and a group of Greenpeace volunteers was making final preparations to greet the decision makers with banners and signs along the road. But in the midst of all this, we were honoured with a quiet yet very special moment.

In a branch of the hotel lobby we gathered with four representatives of Arctic Indigenous Peoples; amongst them were Chief Michael Stickman, International Chair of the Arctic Athabaskan Council, and James Gamble, Interim Executive Director of the Aleut International Association, both Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council, who received two of the I Love Arctic photo books that we brought to Kiruna.

In support of the I Love Arctic project, Chief Bill Erasmus of the Arctic Athabaskan Council carried four books with him into the Arctic Council Ministerial meeting to distribute them on our behalf to the four remaining Permanent Participants. We waved him goodbye in the cold air, warmed by the sight of over 17,000 people’s hopes and dreams for the Arctic making their way into the exclusive meeting.

Already yesterday, as delegates and Ministers were shuttled from the airport to Kiruna's city centre, they were greeted by activists presenting I Love Arctic photos on huge banners along the road.

Inspired by the events so far, we still had one goal to fulfill: the handover of the books to the Arctic Council member states. Today's final appointment was with the outgoing Chair of the Arctic Council Gustaf Lind and the Danish Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm, who received the last eight of the I Love Arctic photo books.

Despite the weak outcome of the Arctic Council Ministerial meeting, which was full of nice words, yet failed to sufficiently address pressing issues like greenhouse gas emissions of the Arctic States, Black Carbon or the real risks of Arctic oil drilling with concrete plans of action, we leave tomorrow knowing that the call of our ever-growing global movement for the Arctic was heard loud and clear in Kiruna.

Bringing the voices of people across the globe to the Arctic Council meeting was an important milestone. The struggle to save the Arctic and the future of our planet is a marathon, not a sprint. Together we celebrate the culmination of our achievements - tomorrow it's back to work.

What does REF stand for? Not renewable energy...

Graham Thompson — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:08:44 +0000

Question: What do you think is the main reason for the increases in consumer gas and electricity prices over the last 12 months?

Image caption:

Question: What do you think is the main reason for the increases in consumer gas and electricity prices over the last 12 months?

Polling conducted for Carbon Brief shows that the public primarily blame profiteering by energy companies for recent increases in energy bills. Only 7% of those polled blamed ‘green’ taxes, despite a concerted campaign by certain newspapers to persuade them this was the culprit.

This may be connected to another result from the same poll, which found that while 69% of people trust climate scientists on climate change, only 10% trust the newspapers, and this figure only rises to 17% when they were specifically asked about the newspaper they chose to read.

Why is this? Having read today's Daily Mail and Telegraph coverage of a new report by the Renewable Energy Foundation on the government’s energy policies, I’m inclined to think it might be connected to the rather lax standards of journalism applied in this area.

The magical thinking of the anti-science crowd, where the laws of physics can be adapted to fit your political ideology, bears a strong resemblance to <cosmic ordering, which, to quote The Cosmic Ordering Site:

...harnesses the power of positive thinking and the creative energy of our thoughts to manifest whatever we desire. There are no limits, you can ask for anything, a new love or a new house, money or wealth, health or healing... whatever you desire can be yours.

It might seem like a bit of a cheap shot to liken a serious report on energy economics to a ridiculous manufactured superstition. And so I won’t. But I will liken this particular ‘report’ to a ridiculous manufactured superstition, for three reasons. One is that it is in no way serious (see here for details), and the second is that the founding chairman of the organisation which produced it is also the UK’s leading proponent of, you guessed it, cosmic ordering.

The third reason is that, while it’s vital in this sort of debate to play the ball not the man, the ball, such as it is, has been comprehensively played out of the park by Energy Desk, and Carbon Brief. That leaves me nothing to play but the man. I wish I were Pele, but I’m Vinnie Jones, and this is one long late sliding tackle.

John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, has produced these three pages of idle musings which he amusingly refers to as a ‘report’. The Renewable Energy Foundation is "a registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy", according to their website, which claims to support decarbonising the economy and meeting our renewables targets.

Here are some quotes from Margareta Stanley, REF's spokeswoman, setting the record straight:

We have never been anti wind.

It's unfair to say that we're anti-wind.

We don't lobby.

We have never criticised the renewables sector in the UK.

Confused yet? You will be.

Here are some quotes from the REF’s Director, and author of the new ‘report’, John Constable:

We have consistently argued for offshore wind, among other technologies, to be made more attractive, and for a secure role for the renewables sector. Renewables have much to offer in tackling our energy crisis.

No, sorry, not that one, these ones:

Offshore wind is still more expensive, perhaps four or five times as expensive as conventional energy.

The fact is that renewable energy is still far from competitive with fossil fuels, and nowhere near as economically productive.

Green energy, the current green economy overall, is a costly output of the fossil-fuelled economy.

We shouldn’t mistake the frenzy of deployment for healthy growth.

And finally:

Subsidies, those transfers of wealth from the fossil-fuelled economy, are providing remarkable rates of return for short-term investors, but when these transfers cease, as they will when consumers tell politicians that the prospective or actual reductions in standards of living are unacceptable, the current green growth will evaporate like dew before the rising sun.

What reductions in standards of living, you might well ask?

Constable (whose ‘report’, incidentally, does not include the word ‘climate') is not merely arguing ossil fuels are cheaper. He’s claiming a switch to green energy would propel us back into a pre-industrial age, and not in a good way.

The population would begin to step back towards the condition of ‘laborious poverty’ noted by Jevons as characteristic of the pre-coal era.

He demonstrates this by comparing the coal mining and agricultural sectors in Britain in 1851. Apparently, the coal sector produced a lot more energy per head than the agricultural sector. No, I’m not joking. Next time you hear someone accuse environmentalists of scaremongering, remember that. Renewable energy will take living standards back to the ‘pre-coal era’.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change, after dismissing REF’s figures as unrecognisable, described the ‘report’ as:

...a manifesto for locking the British economy into excessive reliance on imported gas from far-flung, unstable parts of the world.

Why would a charity dedicated to "promoting… the use of renewable energy" publish a manifesto for imported gas?

An uncharitable interpretation might be that they were turned from the path of righteousness by the funding they received from the gas industry.

But this would be wrong. The truth is that the REF are, and have always been, anti-wind lobbyists. Even at their launch back in 2004, it was abundantly clear the only issue they actually care about is blocking wind farms.

Everything else, up to and including their name, is just an attempt to construct a veneer of neutrality, in the hope that their fantastical statistics will be presented as impartial research rather than the wildly inaccurate propaganda it is. And some papers seem happy to play along.

Fortunately, their readers don’t trust them.

The transport minister and the 20,000 people who demanded better

sara_a — Mon, 13 May 2013 17:41:55 +0000

Com'on, Norman. Don't block the changes we urgently need.

Image caption:

Com'on, Norman. Don't block the changes we urgently need.

When the alarm rang at 4.45am this morning, I was already awake. Nobody overslept or moaned about feeling tired. And after a quick pre-action breakfast we piled into the minibus, loaded with climbing equipment, a huge banner and our petition printed with the names of 20,000 UK campaign supporters. We were on route to Lewes, the constituency of UK Transport Minister, Norman Baker, who this Wednesday will represent the UK in a make-or-break moment for the future of pollution from cars.

On Sunday night, around 20 of us gathered in a hostel in East Sussex. And over a dinner of veggie curry and flapjacks we discussed plans for the Greenpeace action the following morning. The climbers planned how best to hang the 18 metre wide banner.

On Wednesday, Norman Baker will have responsibility for representing the UK’s views on future car emissions targets during a vote by the European Council of Ministers. European processes can be complex and multi-layered, but Wednesday is a make-or-break moment in what has been a two year battle against car companies and some of the politicians who have been heavily lobbied by them.

The vote comes at a moment when the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have just reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, and when we are becoming increasingly locked into a reliance on unconventional and environmentally catastrophic forms of oil extraction, from deep water, tar sands and potentially the Arctic. We have the chance to cut car emissions in half by 2025 and reduce oil use in Europe by around 8%. Making cars that use less oil is technically possible; it would save drivers money on fuel; and, it is low-hanging fruit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels - changes we urgently need to make.

But instead of supporting future targets for 2020 and 2025, our Lib Dem Transport Minister is supporting a loophole called ‘super credits’, which would allow car makers to over-count the electric vehicles they produce, and enable them to offset these against their gas guzzlers. This would bring the actual emissions up to levels beyond that allowed by the 2020 laws. He is also blocking attempts to set new targets for 2025. Without new targets we halt the progress that has so far been made on reducing CO2 emissions from cars, and lose this crucial chance to implement long-term change.

Today Greenpeace released a leaked briefing, detailing how the Department of Transport, led by Baker, has advised MEPs to vote against a 2025 target – which was proposed in the EU Parliament by a fellow Lib Dem MEP Fiona Hall. The briefing also revealed the government’s sympathy for ‘super credits’.

We wanted to let Norman Baker’s constituents – the people who voted for him – know, and tell him to do better and live up to the Lib Dems climate promises. So at 6am this morning, we arrived on Lewes High Street and our climbers scaled a 5 storey building. Despite the rain and high winds of the last few days, and our fears late last night that we wouldn’t be able to hang such an enormous banner; the winds dropped this morning and as we pulled into Lewes the sun miraculously began to shine. With the banner hung, another team of activists headed off to the local station to hand leaflets to people on their way to work.

Later this morning, we trooped around the corner to Norman Baker’s constituency office to hand in a printed version of our online petition – 20,000 names of people from the UK (among more than 70,000 across the EU). The petition for cleaner cars will continue to run until the laws are finally agreed between ministers and MEPs in June.

Please add your name now – this is really the moment when you can tell politicians to make a difference.

It’s crunch time (again) for Europe’s fish ministers

Willie — Mon, 13 May 2013 11:56:51 +0000

A full page ad calls for Benyon to support sustainable fishing

Image caption:

A full page ad calls for Benyon to support sustainable fishing

If you listen to Ronan Keating much (I don’t) – you’d be familiar with the concept that Life is a Rollercoaster.

But for some of us, it’s a bit more accurate to liken the process of reforming Europe’s failed fish laws to that particular fun-fair ride : full of twists and turns, highs and lows, moments of hopeful elation, followed by moments of abject panic and fear. And sometimes making us reach for a sick bag.

Okay, that may be a stretch. But if you’ve been following the process of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) you may well be a little confused. The timeline keeps changing, and you are repeatedly told that ‘this is it! Crunch time!’ or ‘Yay! Well done! Good News!’

Sadly this complicated process is the reality we European fisheries campaigners have to engage with, and if it’s confusing for us, imagine what it must look like to fishing communities across Europe scratching their head over the prolonged opaque process of fixing something we all know is broken.

Reform of the CFP is supposed to happen every decade. This one was supposed to be done and dusted in 2012, but it has dragged on. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that the combination of public interest and pressure has meant that this reform process has been under the political spotlight like never before. Groups like Greenpeace and Hugh’s Fish Fight have been working together across Europe to make sure that politicians know what is on the line for our seas, and giving voice to the coastal fishing communities that depend on them. We’ve been making sure the people elected to represent us in faceless buildings in Brussels & Strasbourg know what we, and you care about. The most visible result of that was the astounding success in the European Parliament in February where MEPs voted 5 to 1 for a hugely ambitious package of reforms.

That though, was not the end of the process. Now it’s down to a tricky task of getting agreement between the Parliament’s progressive position, and the, er, slightly less-progressive position being taken by Europe’s fisheries ministers. This, folks, is the messy, but important, bit at the end.

This week, on Monday, Tuesday, and probably the early hours of Wednesday, the fisheries ministers will be meeting again. Steered by the EU presidency we are being told this will be the last-ditch attempt to agree their collective position.

So that’s why we now need our minister Richard Benyon to step up to the plate. Throughout the process he has championed the need for real reform, and now we need him and his like-minded colleagues to lead the charge for a progressive agreement on that reform. He needs to deliver on the fine words and promises.

Only if our ministers agree a good compromise does it look like a deal can be done with the Parliament for far-reaching reform – reform so desperately needed to ensure healthy seas and vibrant fishing communities in the future. Failure, or ever more delay surely cannot be a viable option at this stage.

That’s why, in conjunction with WWF, RSPB, Ocean2012, NEF and MCS, we placed a message to Richard Benyon in today’s Daily Telegraph.

Richard Benyon, your time is now. We’re counting on you to deliver.

If you want to tell Benyon you’re counting on him too, you can tweet @RichardBenyonMP #CFPreform

And if you want to show your support for Europe’s low-impact fishermen, you can sign up here. We’ll be sending on all your support for the small-scale fishing sector to Benyon and his European colleagues.

Result: forest destroyer Duta Palma kicked out of sustainable palm oil group

Richardg — Mon, 13 May 2013 11:24:54 +0000

by-nc. Credit: Ulet Ifansasti / Greenpeace

Duta Palma is a notorious palm oil company with an inglorious history of trashing the rainforest. This morning, it became the first company to be kicked out of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Last month we released our latest crime file on Duta Palma, one of Indonesia's largest palm oil companies. 800 acres of forest right next to Duta Palma's PT Palma Satu plantation had been cleared illegally - apparently by DP employees.

This carbon-rich peatland is specifically protected by the Indonesian government's deforestation moratorium. (That temporary ban is up for renewal this month, and many larger palm oil companies want it scrapped because it limits how much of the forest they can destroy. Word on the street is that they've failed: the ban will be extended.)

We called on the RSPO to take swift and firm action against Duta Palma - but it already had Duta Palma under investigation. The company had been caught converting deep peatland into a palm oil plantation, clearing forest without assessing whether it was of high conservation value and using fires to clear land.

Duta Palma kept trying to fob the RSPO off and refused to take their complaint seriously. After several months of trying they finally gave up and decided to kick DP out - making it the first company to have been thrown out since the RSPO was set up a decade ago.

This is a great start - but it won't stop Duta Palma from destroying the rainforest. Now the onus is on the Indonesian government to strengthen the deforestation ban and review the existing concessions, so that rogue operators like Duta Palma can’t get away with their environmental crimes.

Climate and Euroscepticism: leftwing, rightwing and wrongwing

Graham Thompson — Fri, 10 May 2013 16:35:01 +0000

Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptic tank GWPF

Image caption:

Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptic tank GWPF

Lean, mean budgeting machine Lord Nigel Lawson is back in the news, still resolutely sceptical but, for a change, not about climate science. He’s returned to his old stamping ground, the European Union, and is now being resolutely sceptical about that. These two positions, climate scepticism and euroscepticism, are complementary.

About 80% of environmental legislation protecting our wildlife, water, air and climate comes from Europe. For example, Europe imposes the air quality limits which several British cities have been in breach of for the last five years, at a cost of around 175,000 British lives so far.

So, if you were convinced that it was economically desirable to allow corporations total freedom to pollute, it would naturally follow that you would oppose both EU legislation and the potential limits on CO2 emissions which climate science demands.

Lawson - probably the UK’s most prominent climate sceptic and eurosceptic - joins Ukip, the UK’s most Eurosceptic party which is also the only large political party to deny climate science, with famous members such as their former spokesman on climate issues and deputy leader, Lord Monckton (possibly the most prominent UK climate sceptic on the global stage).

Then there’s our old friend the one-trick wind-farm whinger, the Telegraph’s number two climate sceptic James Delingpole, also a fanatical UKIP cheerleader and brother and son to UKIP candidates. Latest blog title: ‘Lord Lawson's right: of course we should quit the EU’.

The Telegraph’s number one climate sceptic, Christopher Booker, has written several book-length attacks on the EU in collaboration with Richard North. North also publishes his climate scepticism on a blog entitled – wait for it – EU Referendum.

Other notable climate sceptics include Roger Helmer MEP, science-denying Eurosceptic who recently left the Conservative party to become UKIP’s climate change spokesman, and Godfrey Bloom MEP.

Bloom rails against action on climate change whilst spending £2,000 of European taxpayers’ money a month on a "climate and environment researcher" who is, of course, a climate sceptic blogger. In his spare time, Bloom is an enthusiastic supporter of his local hunt and international state-sponsored terrorism in which Greenpeace campaigners are killed.

Being open about climate scepticism isn’t very fashionable in the UK’s main three parliamentary parties. But arch-Eurosceptic Peter Lilley, one of only five MPs to oppose the 2008 climate change act and a key figure in our Energygate investigation, appears to have had a bit of a resurgence. He's now in the prime minister’s policy unit (while apparently briefing against him). John Redwood and John Hayes also fit neatly into the pattern.

The point here is not that climate sceptics tend to be Eurosceptics, but that the climate sceptic high-command and the supreme council of Euroscepticism are the same people.

Every prominent UK climate sceptic is either a published Eurosceptic, a leading member of a Eurosceptic party, or both.

But why?

Delingpole has an explanation for this in his latest blog:

Euroscepticism and climate scepticism often go hand in hand, first because many of the very worst, most destructive environmental policies (such as the commitment to "decarbonise" the economy which led to Bryony Worthington's 2008 Climate Change Act) are originally dreamed up by EU apparatchiks. And second because to express such views in public life requires a fearless, cussed, contra mundum temperament, the product of an intellectual self-confidence and independence many, if not most of our craven political class lack.

Forgive my scepticism, but I rather doubt that we’re dealing with a disparate group of fiercely independent free thinkers who just happened, en masse but entirely independently, to be the only people to spot the flaws in the European model and become the leading voices against European integration, and then a few years later just happened, en masse but entirely independently, to be the only people to spot the supposed flaws in climate models and become the leading voices against action to limit emissions.

Delingpole’s explanation is clearly dishonest. For the truth, we need to turn to Telegraph journalist James Delingpole:

It’s because I understand that “Environmentalism” is but one strategically significant theatre in a much greater ideological war being waged across the world. It’s the same one Toby Young is fighting over education; the same one the likes of Rod Liddle, Andrew Gilligan, Nick Cohen and Mark Steyn are fighting over political Islam; the same one Melanie Phillips is fighting over Israel; the same one Douglas Murray is fighting on pretty much everything.

So apparently it’s not a public debate about the reliability of climate science after all. It is, in the minds of Delingpole and his allies, "but one strategically significant theatre in an ideological war".

Climate sceptics haven’t looked at the problem and decided it isn’t really there. They’ve looked at the solution - regulation of corporate power and restrictions on emissions - and decided it isn’t ideologically acceptable. And as it’s the only solution on the table, they have to pretend there is no problem to solve.

This ‘ideological war’ isn’t a right versus left battle. This is shown by the large majority of right wingers, including most of the cabinet, who are cautious of new restrictions on economic activity, but are not prepared to accuse the entire scientific community of being party to history’s greatest conspiracy.

The ideology driving this ‘war’ is not conservatism, but neo-conservatism, the only ideology since the second world war to consciously and deliberately go to war against reality.

Ron Suskind of the New York Times recorded a conversation he had at the White House which explains, to some degree, what’s going on here:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

The ‘aide’ was allegedly Karl Rove, otherwise known as Bush’s brain.

Finally, some judicious study of discernible reality from Lord Deben, former Secretary of State for the Environment and chairman of the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher:

I agree about sceptics. They are people who allow their desire for a world that does not exist to become their rational understanding of the world we live in. Eurosceptics can't understand that we live 22 miles off the coast of France, and we either get on with our neighbours and work together or we can't solve the problems which face us mutually.

Half our air pollution is blown over from them, and half we produce is blown over to them. How can you possibly have an environmental policy except on a European basis? Just as Eurosceptics refuse to accept the geographical, political, cultural, religious, and historic facts of life, so the climate sceptics deny the scientific realities.

I'm all for being prudential, careful and suspicious of simplistic solutions - that's good business sense. Scepticism, on the other hand, is corrosive, damaging, and always leads to mistaken solutions.

FOOTNOTES

Incidentally, for those readers who believe that Britain is the only country in Europe which actually bothers to implement EU directives – our government is currently promising to rectify this problem and meet the 2008 air quality standards no later than 2025. Up ‘til then, our government will try to ignore the law, because what’s the point of being in government if you have to obey the law?

And for those readers who believe that we’re the only country who are honest about whether we implement them or not, as opposed to those untrustworthy continentals who agree to everything and then try to fudge the data, here’s Boris’s solution to London’s toxic pollution problem – spread glue on the roads in the immediate vicinity of the air quality monitoring stations to stick the pollution to the ground.

Links for 2011-09-30 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 00:00:00 PDT

None

Links for 2009-11-17 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

The changing face of China's coal industry
China's coal industry is becoming more efficient - and not in a good way.

Links for 2009-11-12 [del.icio.us]

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

Environmental lobby group accused of 'eco-snobbery'
It's "the eco equivalent of political correctness gone mad” according to aviation industry figureheads Flying Matters, as 10:10 refuses to let Manchester Airport sign up to its emissions reduction campaign.

Links for 2009-11-06 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

FT.com / UK - Heating up
A good summary of where we're at with the barcelona climate talks in the run up to Copenhagen from the FT.

Links for 2009-11-04 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

Climate Rescue Weblog: “Please save our home”
An update from out campaigner Bustar at the forests defender camp in Kampar.
Mèlanie Laurent joins the Climate Defenders Camp
Tarantino's latest muse drops in to the climate defenders camp.

Links for 2009-11-02 [del.icio.us]

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

Climate Rescue Weblog: The King of the Jungle
Rob, who's been setting up the climate defenders camp in Kampar, tells the tale of swamps, big banners, and 40 degree hikes through the jungle.
Greenpeace International: Dam - it's even harder than it looks!
A detailed guide to how to go about damming an Indonesian peat-draining canal, in case you were wondering how to go about it...
Greenepace International: Kampar Camp Construction
A detailed guide to building your own climate defenders camp in the heart of the Indonesian rainforest.

Links for 2009-10-28 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 PDT

When mummy is an activist - Times Online
Emma tells the Times what it's like balancing climbing up parliament with raising twins.