MPs’ anger over solar ‘daylight robbery’

The government has recently announced plans to axe the ‘export tariff’ for new solar installations – in what for many was a surprise move.

Twenty two MPs took part in a pitch-black photo shoot to illustrate this ‘daylight robbery’ and the threat to new solar homes next year.

Participants included Shadow Treasury Minister Clive Lewis, Shadow Energy Minister Alan Whitehead, Conservative MP David Amess, Green MP Caroline Lucas and SNP energy spokespeople Drew Hendry and Alan Brown.

Fair rates

The export tariff is a fair market payment for clean power exported to the grid from solar homes and buildings.

If these plans go through, householders, schools, churches and other public buildings undertaking new solar projects will be forced to effectively donate the excess clean electricity they generate to big energy companies for free.

The proposal runs counter to new EU laws which requires governments to ensure people are paid ‘at a fair market rate’ for the clean power they contribute to the grid.

A recent YouGov poll by campaign group 10:10 shows over 70 percent of people want to see the UK Government follow suit and continue to pay people fairly for the clean power they produce.

The campaigners, which include the Solar Trade Association, 10:10 Climate Action, UK Youth Climate Coalition, NFU, ECA and Community Energy England, are calling on the government for fair treatment of rooftop solar with a fair export tariff guaranteed after March 2019.

Clean energy

Max Wakefield lead campaigner at 10:10 said: “What the government proposes is daylight robbery – literally. Like a vampire this move threatens to suck the life out of the solar industry.

“We urge every one of our lawmakers to get behind our campaign for basic fair treatment for solar homes and communities.

“Action on climate change, solar jobs and clean power for ordinary households, businesses and community organisations is at stake.”

Sir David Amess MP added: “The solar industry has taken the UK from near zero to over a million installations in just 8 years. In doing so solar costs have come tumbling down – but it stands to reason even cheap energy still needs payment for the power it provides.

That’s why I’m backing this campaign to ensure fair treatment for new solar households and businesses. The clean energy and jobs of tomorrow are at stake”

Nonsensical barriers

Caroline Lucas MP said: “The British public love solar – nine out of ten people back it, and three out of every 5 would like to install solar panels themselves.

“The government’s bizarre plans to stop homes and businesses being paid for the clean power they produce will make this all but impossible.

“I’m calling on the energy minister Claire Perry to bring government policy in line with the public’s desire for clean energy at a fair price.”

Leonie Greene, new markets director at the Solar Trade Association added: “We are very grateful for the support these MPs have given.  It is extraordinary & very sad that we are having to fight for basic fair market treatment for people who want to install solar power in future.

“Solar is now very affordable so it is vital that Government doesn’t create new nonsensical barriers to people & communities all over the UK who want to go solar.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from 10:10. You can read more about their Daylight Robbery campaign here

Towards a ‘Global Deal for Nature and People’

A combination of growing awareness, an emerging movement for change and the prospect for political breakthrough all signal that the world is waking up to the scale of the threat.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

It is not only among activists and campaigners that there is an emerging sense of urgency, but also in the boardrooms of major consumer goods companies, multi-billion-dollar investment houses and among some governments.

All this not least because of the growing realisation that properly functioning natural systems are vital for people’s health, wealth and security.

Environmental restoration 

Here in the UK, public demand is also growing. For example, the political think tank Bright Blue published a report in the wake of the UK’s 2017 general election setting out how one reason the governing Conservative party did poorly among younger voters was its apparent lack of commitment to environmental causes.

Out Now!
Out Now!

These findings help explain the subsequent very welcome rise in profile of environmental issues in politics, laying the foundations for stronger cross-party consensus.

This shift in the public mood offers a rare opportunity to build a new movement for Nature, one that could create a bigger political and public space for action.

The information and research telling us what governments and companies need to do has been in existence for years. What’s been missing is the public demand for action, and the political will to deliver it.

But just as in 2008 there was a polit­ical moment that allowed the passage of the Climate Change Act, the public mood is shifting in favour of change.

Ambitious agenda

We need to grasp this moment to deliver strong new environmental laws at home, in the form of a new environment act requiring the recovery of Nature, alongside new farming policies that promote environmental restoration.

National leadership in key countries, including the UK, would help take forward proposals for a Global Deal for Nature and People, to be agreed in 2020.

This would be a commitment from heads of state when they meet at the 75th United Nations General Assembly, spelling out how it is no longer rational or acceptable to degrade Nature, and instead placing us on a path toward the restoration of the natural world.

Underpinning this would be a series of agreements forged in 2020 in a series of important summits, including new national targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It would also involved a renewed ambition for the Paris Agreement on climate change, a strengthening of the environmental commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals, and a new agreement on the conservation of wildlife in the high seas.

Join together

This is an ambitious agenda, and needs to be. With sufficient public support and political will, we can halt the long-term decline of Nature and begin restoring the planet that sustains us.

Whether world leaders rise to the challenge is a matter of choice, including in individual countries, such as the UK, which if it wished could show the kind of leadership needed.

The scale of human impacts on the Earth is now utterly unsustainable.

The question now is not whether the world is under threat, but rather whether we will act in time. We need to join together in a movement to demand that the world take action and give us a Global Deal for Nature and People.

This Author

Tony Juniper is Executive Director for Advocacy and Campaigns at WWF-UK. This article first appeared in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine, which is out now!

MPs’ anger over solar ‘daylight robbery’

The government has recently announced plans to axe the ‘export tariff’ for new solar installations – in what for many was a surprise move.

Twenty two MPs took part in a pitch-black photo shoot to illustrate this ‘daylight robbery’ and the threat to new solar homes next year.

Participants included Shadow Treasury Minister Clive Lewis, Shadow Energy Minister Alan Whitehead, Conservative MP David Amess, Green MP Caroline Lucas and SNP energy spokespeople Drew Hendry and Alan Brown.

Fair rates

The export tariff is a fair market payment for clean power exported to the grid from solar homes and buildings.

If these plans go through, householders, schools, churches and other public buildings undertaking new solar projects will be forced to effectively donate the excess clean electricity they generate to big energy companies for free.

The proposal runs counter to new EU laws which requires governments to ensure people are paid ‘at a fair market rate’ for the clean power they contribute to the grid.

A recent YouGov poll by campaign group 10:10 shows over 70 percent of people want to see the UK Government follow suit and continue to pay people fairly for the clean power they produce.

The campaigners, which include the Solar Trade Association, 10:10 Climate Action, UK Youth Climate Coalition, NFU, ECA and Community Energy England, are calling on the government for fair treatment of rooftop solar with a fair export tariff guaranteed after March 2019.

Clean energy

Max Wakefield lead campaigner at 10:10 said: “What the government proposes is daylight robbery – literally. Like a vampire this move threatens to suck the life out of the solar industry.

“We urge every one of our lawmakers to get behind our campaign for basic fair treatment for solar homes and communities.

“Action on climate change, solar jobs and clean power for ordinary households, businesses and community organisations is at stake.”

Sir David Amess MP added: “The solar industry has taken the UK from near zero to over a million installations in just 8 years. In doing so solar costs have come tumbling down – but it stands to reason even cheap energy still needs payment for the power it provides.

That’s why I’m backing this campaign to ensure fair treatment for new solar households and businesses. The clean energy and jobs of tomorrow are at stake”

Nonsensical barriers

Caroline Lucas MP said: “The British public love solar – nine out of ten people back it, and three out of every 5 would like to install solar panels themselves.

“The government’s bizarre plans to stop homes and businesses being paid for the clean power they produce will make this all but impossible.

“I’m calling on the energy minister Claire Perry to bring government policy in line with the public’s desire for clean energy at a fair price.”

Leonie Greene, new markets director at the Solar Trade Association added: “We are very grateful for the support these MPs have given.  It is extraordinary & very sad that we are having to fight for basic fair market treatment for people who want to install solar power in future.

“Solar is now very affordable so it is vital that Government doesn’t create new nonsensical barriers to people & communities all over the UK who want to go solar.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from 10:10. You can read more about their Daylight Robbery campaign here

Towards a ‘Global Deal for Nature and People’

A combination of growing awareness, an emerging movement for change and the prospect for political breakthrough all signal that the world is waking up to the scale of the threat.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

It is not only among activists and campaigners that there is an emerging sense of urgency, but also in the boardrooms of major consumer goods companies, multi-billion-dollar investment houses and among some governments.

All this not least because of the growing realisation that properly functioning natural systems are vital for people’s health, wealth and security.

Environmental restoration 

Here in the UK, public demand is also growing. For example, the political think tank Bright Blue published a report in the wake of the UK’s 2017 general election setting out how one reason the governing Conservative party did poorly among younger voters was its apparent lack of commitment to environmental causes.

Out Now!
Out Now!

These findings help explain the subsequent very welcome rise in profile of environmental issues in politics, laying the foundations for stronger cross-party consensus.

This shift in the public mood offers a rare opportunity to build a new movement for Nature, one that could create a bigger political and public space for action.

The information and research telling us what governments and companies need to do has been in existence for years. What’s been missing is the public demand for action, and the political will to deliver it.

But just as in 2008 there was a polit­ical moment that allowed the passage of the Climate Change Act, the public mood is shifting in favour of change.

Ambitious agenda

We need to grasp this moment to deliver strong new environmental laws at home, in the form of a new environment act requiring the recovery of Nature, alongside new farming policies that promote environmental restoration.

National leadership in key countries, including the UK, would help take forward proposals for a Global Deal for Nature and People, to be agreed in 2020.

This would be a commitment from heads of state when they meet at the 75th United Nations General Assembly, spelling out how it is no longer rational or acceptable to degrade Nature, and instead placing us on a path toward the restoration of the natural world.

Underpinning this would be a series of agreements forged in 2020 in a series of important summits, including new national targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It would also involved a renewed ambition for the Paris Agreement on climate change, a strengthening of the environmental commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals, and a new agreement on the conservation of wildlife in the high seas.

Join together

This is an ambitious agenda, and needs to be. With sufficient public support and political will, we can halt the long-term decline of Nature and begin restoring the planet that sustains us.

Whether world leaders rise to the challenge is a matter of choice, including in individual countries, such as the UK, which if it wished could show the kind of leadership needed.

The scale of human impacts on the Earth is now utterly unsustainable.

The question now is not whether the world is under threat, but rather whether we will act in time. We need to join together in a movement to demand that the world take action and give us a Global Deal for Nature and People.

This Author

Tony Juniper is Executive Director for Advocacy and Campaigns at WWF-UK. This article first appeared in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine, which is out now!

MPs’ anger over solar ‘daylight robbery’

The government has recently announced plans to axe the ‘export tariff’ for new solar installations – in what for many was a surprise move.

Twenty two MPs took part in a pitch-black photo shoot to illustrate this ‘daylight robbery’ and the threat to new solar homes next year.

Participants included Shadow Treasury Minister Clive Lewis, Shadow Energy Minister Alan Whitehead, Conservative MP David Amess, Green MP Caroline Lucas and SNP energy spokespeople Drew Hendry and Alan Brown.

Fair rates

The export tariff is a fair market payment for clean power exported to the grid from solar homes and buildings.

If these plans go through, householders, schools, churches and other public buildings undertaking new solar projects will be forced to effectively donate the excess clean electricity they generate to big energy companies for free.

The proposal runs counter to new EU laws which requires governments to ensure people are paid ‘at a fair market rate’ for the clean power they contribute to the grid.

A recent YouGov poll by campaign group 10:10 shows over 70 percent of people want to see the UK Government follow suit and continue to pay people fairly for the clean power they produce.

The campaigners, which include the Solar Trade Association, 10:10 Climate Action, UK Youth Climate Coalition, NFU, ECA and Community Energy England, are calling on the government for fair treatment of rooftop solar with a fair export tariff guaranteed after March 2019.

Clean energy

Max Wakefield lead campaigner at 10:10 said: “What the government proposes is daylight robbery – literally. Like a vampire this move threatens to suck the life out of the solar industry.

“We urge every one of our lawmakers to get behind our campaign for basic fair treatment for solar homes and communities.

“Action on climate change, solar jobs and clean power for ordinary households, businesses and community organisations is at stake.”

Sir David Amess MP added: “The solar industry has taken the UK from near zero to over a million installations in just 8 years. In doing so solar costs have come tumbling down – but it stands to reason even cheap energy still needs payment for the power it provides.

That’s why I’m backing this campaign to ensure fair treatment for new solar households and businesses. The clean energy and jobs of tomorrow are at stake”

Nonsensical barriers

Caroline Lucas MP said: “The British public love solar – nine out of ten people back it, and three out of every 5 would like to install solar panels themselves.

“The government’s bizarre plans to stop homes and businesses being paid for the clean power they produce will make this all but impossible.

“I’m calling on the energy minister Claire Perry to bring government policy in line with the public’s desire for clean energy at a fair price.”

Leonie Greene, new markets director at the Solar Trade Association added: “We are very grateful for the support these MPs have given.  It is extraordinary & very sad that we are having to fight for basic fair market treatment for people who want to install solar power in future.

“Solar is now very affordable so it is vital that Government doesn’t create new nonsensical barriers to people & communities all over the UK who want to go solar.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from 10:10. You can read more about their Daylight Robbery campaign here

Practicing what we preach – on plastics

Everything is degradable – whether it takes 500, or 1,000 years to break down. That doesn’t necessarily make it environmentally sound – sitting in landfill for all that time, or floating across the oceans and breaking down into microplastics.

It may not degrade at all if it’s hidden from sunlight in a mountain of landfill.

Although many of you have led the change, there are those who still expect a plastic coating on many of their products. Why else would Sainsbury’s have coined the concept of “touch-free” packaging? Sorry, Millennials, they’re blaming this on you.

Positive alternatives

Let’s not forget a commercial interest in plastic. Companies have a vested interest in this convenient material.

According to sustainable campaigners WRAP, both virgin LDPE and HDPE prices are at almost £1,300 per tonne. Virgin PET plastic currently trades at around £1,052 per tonne. Clear PET bottle prices have recently reached £178 per tonne, the highest price point seen since November 2014. 

But there are alternatives and as the Soil Association research shows, 88 percent of people want to reduce the amount of plastic they use. 

Biodegradable, and compostable packaging is a positive move away from our love-affair with plastics, which began sometime in the 1940s.

In April this year more than 40 companies agreed to cut their plastic pollution over the next seven years. The likes of Asda, Marks & Spencer and Coca-Cola have all signed up to the promise, led by WRAP.

Sustainable packaging 

This, according to forward-thinking compostable packaging firm TIPA is a target that can be achieved.

Daphna Nissenbaum, Founder and CEO of TIPA, said the drive to find a new solution to plastic was personal for her: “The idea was born from a need, seven years ago, when I had an argument with my kids about plastic bottles.

“I thought there must be another way to deal with them. Then when we started, I realised the bottles are not the main issue, because water bottles can be recycled, but flexible packaging cannot.”

Creating sustainable packaging means that TIPA’s “bio-material” is fully compostable so after several months it will have fully degraded, much like an orange peel or a banana skin.

Daphna told The Ecologist: “For around 70 years or so we have been using packaging, so I don’t think it’s an option right now to have none at all, although of course if there is a way not to have packaging then that is the best way. 

Careful consideration 

Daphna continued: “I don’t think we can reverse the plastic crisis, but I think we can dramatically change the future.”

Originally working with food packaging, the toughest nut to crack in the plastics battle, now TIPA is working alongside Stella McCartney in the fashion industry and Daphna says they are getting enquiries every day from new industries. This is a sign that change is heading in the right directions.

Daphna added: “The compostable wrapper is the future.” But not all ‘compostable’ products meet the same criteria as TIPA’s fully biodegradable products. 

On WRAP’s blog – in a piece entitled ‘The Unintended Consequences of a War on Plastic’ – Peter Maddox wrote: “Compostable plastics actually release greenhouse gases as they biodegrade. Plus complications arise if these alternative materials get mixed with conventional plastics in recycling routes.

“By their nature, they are designed to break down, not to be recycled into, let’s say, a damp proof membrane to line your floor. Now, let’s just imagine the unintended consequences of that! There are some contexts where it makes sense to use compostable material, but again it needs careful consideration.” 

Minimal regulation

Andy Cross, who runs Earth Friendly Foodware, based in Devon, says part of the problem is the amount of plastics that are used in single products, making them harder to recycle, or less commercially viable.

He says compostable products that we’ve rushed headlong into producing aren’t the long-term solution. What we need to get better at is re-using and better disposing. 

He told The Ecologist“People are beginning to join up the dots. Since Blue Planet II hit our screens there’s been a mad rush to do something about the plastic problem. There has been a response by commercial companies to bring in products that satisfy this hunger.

Cross added: “It can’t be the final solution. The rush to change products has overlooked how we dispose of things.”

Now enthusiastic responsible consumers see the word compostable on a product and we assume it’s safe and sustainable. But Andy Cross says there is very little regulation on what constitutes compostable, and accreditation is voluntary.

Record levels

Take the example of straws. When marketed as “biodegradable” there’s an assumption that they are safe to use.

Andy said: “Biodegradable straws get in the food chain quicker. They have metal in them, it helps them break down.” Suddenly, the natural solution isn’t sounding quite so natural. He said it’s a simple decision – either use a paper straw, or no straws at all.

Andy continued: “How did we get to using plastics? We justified the use of packaging, we globablised the selling chain, we offered consumers choice. They then want the lowest price.”

With some studies suggesting that by 2050 we’ll have around 12 million tonnes of plastic in landfills, and the recent reports of record levels of micro-plastics found floating in sea ice in the Arctic, the urgency with which we address this enormous problem is paramount.

A review of regulations on packaging needs to be carried out now people have realised we need on it on our products for such a short timeframe. With the huge impact it has on the planet it’s now beginning to be seen as a frivolity.

Final straw

Positive moves are being made all the time. Surfers against Sewage have gained huge momentum with their Plastic Free campaign; the Final Straw campaign to ditch plastic straws has proved effective, as has the Government’s ban on microbeads, and the Refill Campaign is driving behavioural change in consumers to use refillable bottles and cups.

Coffee chain The Boston Tea Party led the way in banning disposable cups altogether, and both TIPA and Earth Friendly Foodware are the companies actively looking for solutions.

It is this type of action that makes the real difference.

Using compostable products is far better than using oil-based plastic and The Resurgence & Ecologist Magazine is pleased to have found a solution for its own packaging. 

Jeanette Gill, of the Resurgence & Ecologist team, said: “As a charity we are always on a tight budget but although the current potato starch wrapping is more expensive, it can be composted at home or disposed of with garden waste at your council. We felt this was very important and it fits in with our ethos.”

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to The Ecologist and tweets as @WordsbyBriggs.

Why Lilley voted against climate action

Environmentalists first promoted a climate change bill when Britain was enjoying an economic boom – albeit through an evidently unsustainable housing bubble and consumer credit.

When the economic crisis of 2008 unfolded, I was a journalist at the Sunday Times newspaper and was told by Nicholas Hellen, then deputy news editor, that any environment stories were – as a result – immediately off the agenda. Consumers could no longer afford to ‘go green’.

But the momentum of the climate change legislation then passing through Parliament was enough to see it through to royal assent, with almost universal support across the political and economic spectrum. A tiny rump of free market Tories were the only MPs to voice any opposition.

Big Ask

The original Climate Change Bill was drafted by Friends of the Earth in 2005 as part of its Big Ask campaign. It was presented to Parliament by the then former Labour environment minister Michael Meacher MP as a Private Members’ Bill, and supported by Conservatives Tim Yeo and John Gummer (now Lord Deben).

The bill was resurrected after the 2005 general election, when almost three-quarters of MPs, representing the main political parties, signed an early day motion – only the fourth time in British history that such a proposal had received such widespread support.

Thom Yorke, the singer-songwriter for Radiohead, who were on the up at the time, was the celebrity face of the Big Ask. But the support for the legislation was almost universal. The Confederation of British Industry lent its support, as did its economic opposites at the Trades Union Congress.

Ed Miliband, environment minister at the time, was responsible for steering the bill through Parliament and – in the wake of more alarming findings from leading climate scientists – changed the draft to increase the target for carbon emissions from 60 to 80 percent.

Three parliamentary committees subjected the draft bill to extensive scrutiny, taking evidence from experts and also Lord Lawson, the one-time chancellor who created the privatised, complex monopoly running the carbon-intensive British industry.

Future Generations

In his retirement, Lawson had taken a keen interest in the issue of climate change, even penning a short book. The Eton and Oxford educated economist argued it would be terribly unfair to ask the poor to suffer today in order to prevent climate change tomorrow.

He argued that economic growth – which was about to come to a juddering halt – would ensure that future generations could afford to adapt to whatever droughts, storms, sea-level rises and chaos that four degrees of global warming was likely to create. 

“So that is the great existential threat facing the planet,” he argued.

“The question, in a nutshell, is how big a sacrifice should we impose on the much poorer present generation in order to avoid the horror of people in 100 years’ time not being more than seven times as well off as we are today but only slightly less than seven times as well off as we are today.”

The MPs and peers at Westminster listened to Lawson’s arguments very carefully. And then, on 26 November 2008, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the bill – including the binding 80 percent cut in emissions.

Fossil Fuels

But the legislation did have two unintended consequences. It served to galvanise a tiny rump of MPs opposed to any limits on the use of fossil fuels.

And it woke the slumbering coal, oil and gas monopolies around the world to the danger of climate regulations becoming law nationally, outside the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process.

The almost entirely unknown Christopher Chope, Philip Davies  and Andrew Tyrie – a former employee of oil monopoly British Petroleum – were among the five Tories to act as tellers or vote against the Climate Change Act.

Ann Widdecombe, a radical right winger perhaps best known for having a pregnant prisoner handcuffed, at least had some profile.

And then, of course, there was Peter Lilley. Lilley had been an investment advisor in North Sea oil in the early 1970s and, at the same time, chairman of the Bow Group of free market Tories closely linked to the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).

The year Margaret Thatcher became prime minister he was chairman of London Oil Analysts and consultant director of the Conservative Research Department. He was, in short, the bridge between wealthy oil investors and the party of government.

Close Ally

Lilley became a close political ally of Nigel Lawson. At the 1982 Conservative party conference, the two men conspired to continue a drastic increase in gas prices for families and businesses – just in time to sell off the fattened goose of British Gas to the City of London.

A few years later, he was rewarded by Lawson who appointed his ally as Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS).

Lawson recalled in his memoirs: “I had long been trying to persuade [Margaret Thatcher] to give a job to my PPS, Peter Lilley… [due to his] high intelligence and commitment to free market principles, he would make a good minister… shortly after my resignation, Margaret put him in the Cabinet.”

Lilley would rise to the post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, during which time he showed his Peter by attacking single mothers – including singing during the Tory party conference in an episode that today can only be described as harrowing.

His hardline approach won him loyal friends at the IEA, which presented him in 2005 with the Arthur Seldon Award for Excellence. It is no surprise, then, that Lilley would become the main cheerleader for IEA-produced climate denial.

Against the Science

The oil analyst got hold of the Climate Change Bill regulatory impact statement before it went in front of Parliament. He claimed the benefits of the bill had been calculated at £52 billion while the costs would be at least £95 billion more.

“He was stunned,” Rupert Darwall reported in his authorised biography of climate denial. “It was probably the most expensive legislation ever put before Parliament.”

Lilley said: “I wasn’t voting against the science. I’ve never disputed the science at all. I remember thinking, ‘here’s no point in hanging around the chamber and seeing this humiliating result come out’, so I went out to have a drink in the bar, and on the way I looked out the window and it was snowing in October.

“And so I went back and called a point of order – which is quite difficult to do during a debate, you have to put on a top hat and other fancy things, but the speaker let me do so – and I pointed out to the house that we were passing a measure on the belief that the world was getting warmer and it was snowing in October in London for the first time in 74 years.

“Immediately, I was told that extreme cold is a symptom of global warming. I thought that this was proof enough that this was an unfalsifiable proposition. If things can heat up and cool down and both of them prove that it’s heating up, you know you can prove anything!”

The reaction of the other MPs, he added, was “‘Oh, poo poo’ and ridicule and ‘mustn’t bring facts into our debating, we’re having a nice cosy vote, we’ve convinced ourselves that the world is getting warm and the fact that it’s getting colder outside is something to be ignored. It’s not something we are going to take into account’. And since then, of course, we’ve had lots of cold winters.”

Lawson and Lilley

Lilley and Tyrie would become the centre of a new grouping of Tory MPs. At first, this was little more than a network of tittle-tattle and self-affirmation – mostly centred on a mail-out of climate denial stories in the national press.

But soon this tightly knit group of politically motivated men grew in confidence and numbers. Lilley would encourage his former mentor Lawson to set up a new “cross party and all party” charity, stuffed with peers who were not so tightly whipped.

This new policy foundation could have political influence without being accountable to any party or indeed constituency. (Seven years later and Lilley is now one of only two active MPs sitting on the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Board of Trustees.)

The group’s aim was to fundamentally undermine the Climate Change Act and ensure that industry would never have to meet the costs of fossil fuel pollution being dumped into the global atmosphere.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press)He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Do fracking mini-quakes matter?

There have been 34 tremors in the Blackpool area since Cuadrilla began fracking at nearby Preston New Road three weeks ago, according to data from the British Geological Survey.

All of these seismic events have been imperceptible on the surface. This begs the question: do they even matter?

From the driller’s perspective, they absolutely do. Any tremor over 0.5 Local Magnitude (LM) on the richter scale requires fracking to stop and testing and monitoring to commence.

Threshold

So far Cuadrilla has been given the so-called ‘red light’ twice, for a 0.8 quake a fortnight ago and a 1.1 seismic event last week. The company’s CEO has since called for the standards to be relaxed, claiming they are ‘strangling’ the industry.

For local people, however, the answer is less obvious. If they don’t feel the quake, should they care? 

The traffic-light-system was brought in by the coalition government in 2014 in response to the 2011 Lancashire earthquake widely-attributed to Cuadrilla’s fracking operations, one which was felt at ground level.

The system put in place a series of checks to ensure seismicity is monitored, and requires drilling to stop for 18 hours in the event of tremor that exceeds 0.5ML, a standard recommended to government by three leading British geologists in a 2012 government-commissioned report.

The Preese Hall paper said the 1.7 threshold initially proposed was “undesirably high from the viewpoint of prudent conduct of future operations,” and that if it were in place it would mean “no action would have been taken before the magnitude 2.3” quake that Cuadrilla’s fracking operations triggered in 2011 since there hadn’t been a tremor larger than 1.7 in the weeks leading up.

Reevaluate

Ed Davey, energy secretary at the time the policy was put in place, told Unearthed: “This was a key decision – based on the best science available – and after extensive consultation. Indeed, I insisted on consulting on the report itself and its recommendations to promote as much transparency as possible.”

Professor Peter Styles, one of the authors of the Preese Hall paper, told Unearthed: “The 0.5ML is a significant level as evidence from around the world shows that it is above that when we see the start of stimulation of movement of small (initially) faults and induced earthquakes which tend to increase in magnitude as more of the fault (or more faults) become involved. That is why we recommended fracking halt for further appraisal at that level.”

But fracking’s years-long interval has complicated matters: “Our original traffic light system then had a sequence of scenarios which might have permitted recommencement of fracking activities until a higher level of 1.0ML and then possibly if not very likely to 1.5ML.

The current simplistic TLS which DECC selected has no plan built into it as to what to do next and so we see a sequence of stopping at 0.5ML, restarting after 18 hours and then stopping again etc etc.

“It should also be recognised that the initial traffic light system was devised 7 years ago when there was anticipation that there would be more wells drilled and fracked in the nearish future so that we (or someone else) could reevaluate the situation and perhaps modify the recommendation.”

Little quakes

A key reason experts supported such a strict red light rule is the prospect that even small quakes could signify that fracking is impacting existing faults – which are cracks in the earth’s crust.

This could (a) lead to more significant seismic events and (b) could have an attritional affect on important fracking components, such as well casing.

Styles, for instance, is concerned that the recent tremors could “indicate that the fracking process is interacting with existing faults and is causing them to move slightly, which may lead to higher seismicity if they weakened.”

Though he believes we are already witnessing such an interaction, he said: “we need to analyse the details of the fault mechanisms from the seismograms to be 100% sure.”

Not everyone agrees smaller tremors could signify larger ones to come, however. Professor Zoe Shipton from the University of Strathclyde said: “Almost certainly not, though you’ll never get a scientists in earthquake to give you a certain no.”

Crockery

In any event it’s important to be clear about what we mean when we say a more significant quake. The quakes in the US can exceed 4 on the richter scale are thought to be caused less by drilling than the practice of wastewater reinjection.

“The clear difference for the UK though, is that the huge uptick in earthquakes in the US has very little to do with fracking and is actually more to do with reinjection of water produced from conventional oil and gas wells, as well as fracked wells,” Shipton said.

That’s not allowed in the UK which means the kind of tremors we could likely see here would be more comparable to those we’ve seen in the past from coal-mining.  The Preese Hall report suggested that existing evidence from coal-mining induced earthquakes suggests “a maximum magnitude of ~3.0 ML.”

You’d certainly feel that, but your house wouldn’t fall down. As the report notes: “There have been no reports of structural damage from mining-induced earthquakes of this magnitude in the UK, so an event induced by a hydraulic fracture treatment at a greater depth is unlikely to cause structural damage.”

That doesn’t mean it’s not a problem for people living in the area who like their plaster intact and their crockery where they left it.

“There are, however, examples of mining induced earthquakes of similar magnitudes in the UK that caused superficial damage, for example, minor cracks in plaster, though these occurred at shallower depths. Such an event would be strongly felt by people within a few kilometres from the epicenter and could cause some alarm.“

Indeed Blackpool South MP Gordon Marsden has said of his constituents: “As the tremors increase, so does the distress and worry to local people.”

Local distress

For Dianne Westgarth, who lives not 800 metres from the Preston New Road site, the underground earthquakes represent yet another fracking-related headache for those in her community exhausted by the fight against fracking. Trust in industry and government is low.

“I’ve absolutely lost faith. We have a group of 16 people and we have all written individually as local residents at least twice and we’ve still not had a response with regards to the seismic activity.”

“The concern is that whatever is happening underneath is that is could be far more significant than these so-called minor tremors”

It’s a view shared by Susan Holliday, who lives even closer to the edge of Cuadrilla’s fracking site.

“We don’t know what damage is being caused beneath the ground, short or long term,” she told Unearthed.

Fresh air

“There are many small faults on the Fylde coast and we don’t know how much movement is or will be caused as fracking fluid migrates into them. As the fracks move along the horizontal well the seismic events are getting closer and closer to our home.”

Holliday noted that many of these minor seismic incidents are happening after fracking has ceased for the day, including a 0.7 tremor that occurred 48 hours after pumping had stopped.

“What we don’t know is what could happen in the future and the size of it”

The prospect of stronger quakes could pose particular hazard to the elderly residents of Carr Bridge, an estate of 366 people, many of whom are “really worried” by the reports of seismic activity, according to Westgarth.

“They’ve come out here to breathe the fresh air and live the rest of their lives in peace. I can’t speak for everybody, but most of them are really concerned about the seismic activity.”

Well integrity

But surface impacts are not the only concern. For Davey, the issue of well integrity was also important factor in his decision to adopt the 0.5 threshold: “Issues would have included the integrity of well casing but there is a long list of issues one would want any analysis to consider from fracking techniques to particular geologies and their implications.”

The 2012 Preese Hall report noted casing damage was found at Cuadrilla’s fracking site after the quake.

Professor Richard Davies, who runs ReFINE, the leading international consortium on fracking,  told Unearthed: “If the fault that shifts is the one that has been drilled through then it’s significant and the wellbore will shear or deform.

“A sheared wellbore would mean you lose well integrity and this could lead to contamination of surrounding rock layers.

“It’s happened in the North Sea and I know of an example in south east Asia but it’s a black swan event really – highly unlikely but possible.”

Underground impacts

The importance of this is, again, debated. Fracking takes place well below the water table so any contaminants which do escape may struggle to reach the surface.

Shipton said: “Wells are designed with several barriers to stop any leakage into aquifers, and in the most sensitive layers there are regulations that state how many runs of casing are required to be cemented in.

“So in the unlikely event that well casing was sheared or the surrounding cement damaged (and the 2011 earthquakes were, and still are quite an unlikely event), any contaminants still have a long way to go before reaching the near surface, and when they get there, there are extra layers of protection.”

The debate over earthquakes comes as industry opposition to the seismic standards is rapidly rising.

Though it was mentioned at the time that the 0.5 red light threshold could be raised once industry and regulators had gathered enough information to understand the underground impacts of fracking, there are signs that government and drilling firms may want to accelerate that timeline.

Industry concerns

Unearthed revealed that energy minister Claire Perry had written about the prospect of relaxing the tremor standards, but she has since rejected calls from industry to raise the threshold: “It would be a very foolish politician who would do things that would be considered to be relaxing regulatory standards when we are trying to reassure people about safety.”

This comes as Cuadrilla CEO Francis Egan has been making the media rounds casting aspersions on the conservative regulations, and warning that the industry “could be strangled before birth” unless the government acted “within weeks.”

A Cuadrilla spokesperson told Unearthed: “Micro seismic events such as these result in tiny movements that are way below anything that would be felt at surface, much less cause any harm or damage.

“Without the sophisticated monitoring in place at Cuadrilla, they would not be detected. It is reassuring that the monitoring and traffic light system is working as it should.

“There have been a series of micro-seismic events but it’s not true to say they have got bigger or increased, there has been no pattern. We have been testing different stages of the well and each has responded differently since we began on October 15. Some have been higher and some have been lower. All have been managed well using the traffic light system operated by the Oil and Gas Authority.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

Weak regulation jeopardises marine life

The failure of local authorities in the UK to enforce protection zones today is threatening fish populations – including the very young, with no evidence of any benefit for fishing communities. 

In 2012 the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) and ClientEarth were at the point of challenging the UK government in court over its failure to protect Special Areas of Conservation or ‘SACs’ from fishing.

SACs have been designated under European laws – mainly written by the UK – since the 1990s. The MCS was likely to win, so the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) convened the marine regulators or Inshore fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) in order to establish clearer controls of our inshore waters.

By 2014, the IFCAs had brought in effective by-laws to protect reefs, seagrass beds and maerl habitats, the most obvious habitats to protect – but the story didn’t end there. 

Commercial trawling

These by-laws included the Northumberland SAC. With very limited commercial trawling interest in the site, it was all closed with no negative impact on the fishing industry. Set nets and pot-fishing for crab and lobster were to continue.

Northumberland SAC is a Marine Protected Area stretching along 60 miles of thinly populated coast between Amble to just across the Scottish border. 

It has not been commercially trawled for more than 15 years – these inshore waters tend to shelter smaller, younger fish that move away into deeper waters as they grow and become more valuable to the fishing industry. 

The IFCA promised that ‘non-reef parts of the site’ could be re-opened to trawling if evidence was forthcoming that the seabed was not all reef. 

So even with little commercial trawling interest in the site, the IFCA and Natural England then paid to survey it. They found 3-4 areas of ‘sand’ interspersed within the reef areas.

Precautionary principle

Recent research in Lyme Bay, after the 2008 closure there, showed that what looks like ‘sand’ may cover reef that a storm can remove, allowing seabed biodiversity associated with reefs to recover.

This only tends to affirm the value of the ‘precautionary principle’. This states that where an activity is causing unacceptable harm, even if scientific understanding is still incomplete, the activity should be subject to restrictions.

Meanwhile, in January 2018, DEFRA committed to move away from a ‘feature-based’ approach to marine conservation to a ‘whole-site’ approach. In other words: wider ecosystems, processes and functions should be protected, not just single elements within them.

Recent findings from the South Arran MPA show that different species of fish measurably benefit from a ‘mosaic’ of habitats. The reef, mud, sand and seagrass which they need at different times should ideally be close to each other, and healthy.

As in Lyme Bay, it has been found that ecological communities, left to themselves, will ‘extend out’ beyond defined features, allowing recolonization, recruitment and growth in sandier habitat. 

Protection from exploitation

These are all exciting developments, including DEFRA’s change of tack. Yet none of them mattered when, ignoring protests from the MCS, the Northumberland IFCA decided to re-open three sandy areas to trawling in Spring 2018.

A potential nursery area for fish has been jeopardised because a minority of the fishing fleet may at some point in the future want to come back if the fish recover. But if it’s mainly an area for younger fish why would it ever be worth trawling in the SAC?

The decision brings no significant economic benefit to fishermen. Added to this, the most recent ecological research, DEFRA’s new ‘whole-site’ approach to management, protection of fish nursery grounds, the precautionary principle, and a progressive interpretation of law have all been disregarded.

Granting access to three small areas – comprising less than 5 percent of the site – will complicate, and almost certainly compromise, protection and the ability to control trawling throughout the rest of the SAC.

The IFCAs are contractually obliged to balance the need to protect the marine environment from – or promote its recovery from – the effects of such exploitation against the social and economic benefits of exploiting fisheries. 

Dismissing benefits 

The behaviour of the Northumberland IFCA is not unusual. Similar stories have emerged in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Kent and Essex. 

Quietly, without attracting undue media attention, the ‘balance’ these bodies are legally and ecologically obliged to strike in protected areas is being ignored. 

It is a measure of the insincerity with which Marine Protected Area management is applied that we still have no large areas closed to all types of fishing.

All good experiments have controls – where nothing happens – in order to compare the impact of an intervention – e.g. trawling. The reason we don’t have any large No Take Zones is that these would, in time, provide a baseline, an irrefutable means of comparing the impact of intervention to that of non-intervention.

The lack of these zones keeps matters and decisions usefully vague; the benefits of conservation can be dismissed as utopian or hypothetical as long as people have no way of seeing them for themselves.

Further uncertainty 

The role of many regulators has been to regulate as little as possible whilst keeping themselves and the government out of the law courts and the newspapers. That is the only ‘balance’ they have really struck. 

All this matters for the outlook beyond Brexit. The precautionary principle in the Habitats Regulations will be weakened. Don’t expect coherent, pro-active regulations that recover the seas from decades of trawling.

EU law helped some more progressive regulators, such as in Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Sussex and Cornwall to future-proof their MPAs against potentially damaging activities – one fisheries regulator Chief Officer from Devon has said as much.

Our current arrangements, as they operate in practice, are already troubling enough.

In addition, we now have further uncertainty and a weakening of those bodies which were set up to benefit both ecosystems and fisheries. Under these circumstances it is far from clear that we will improve on European protections after next March.

These Authors 

Jean-Luc Solandt is a marine biologist and principle specialist in marine protected areas at the Marine Conservation Society. Horatio Morpurgo is a journalist and campaigner who was involved with the campaign to establish an MPA in Lyme Bay and has been writing about these issues for 10 years.

Could you train environmental trainers?

Recent published reports by IPCC and WWF are demanding a transformative response from communities everywhere. We are faced with the challenge of redesigning human impact on earth at local, regional and planetary scales within the lifetime of the generations alive today. 

Gaia Education’s courses enable people everywhere to contribute to this necessary transformation by improving skills, regenerative literacy and the capacity for whole systems design.

Our Training of Trainers in Findhorn, Scotland – starting 10 November – will answer an international demand for forward-looking, innovative educators. It will support facilitators who can build capacity for regionally-focussed regenerative development and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at local level.

Professional pathway

All of Gaia Education’s courses have a ‘glocal‘ focus, catalysing change at local and regional levels to scale-out global impact with over 100 partner organisations on six continents.

The Training of Trainers, which is also referred to as ToT, is a course organised by Gaia Education that helps people deepen their experience of how to teach, facilitate and train people to become more effective local and regional change agents on the path to sustainability and regeneration.

The ToT is part of Gaia Education’s ‘professional pathway’ to becoming an official ​Gaia Education Certified Trainer​. The ToT is the next step on our learning journey after a learner has completed the 125-hour face-to-face ‘​Ecovillage Design Education​’ programme, and at least one of the four dimensions of the ​Gaia Education Design for Sustainability​ online programme.

The path towards working as a trainer and facilitator within our global network is open once the learner has completed the ToT and passed a final interview,

Participants who successfully complete the course will be able to coordinate face-to-dace as well as ​project-based learning programmes taking place in 50 countries​.

Regenerative future

The curriculum primarily focuses on developing core skills of participatory facilitation and learning. 

Participants are equipped with the skills and methodologies to facilitate transformative learning environments and host multi-stakeholder conversations that enable collaborative action.

Capacity building at the scales of communities, cities and bioregions is a critical aspect of the transition towards a world that works for all. Gaia Education has partnered with the UNESCO Global Action Programme (GAP) to work together with other organisations on supporting the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 at local levels. 

In the face of this urgent, monumental task, the upcoming seven day Training of Trainers in Findhorn offers you an opportunity to become an active part of the change you would like to see in the world.

It will enable your to help others in your community to come together and co-create projects that implement the SDGs locally, build community resilience and contribute towards a regenerative future.

Sustainability educators

The Findhorn ToT will be facilitated by Gaia Education trainers with decades of experience in their role as facilitators of positive change.

The trainers of this year’s ToT Findhorn include May East​​, CEO of Gaia Education and UNITAR Fellow. East is a renowned sustainability practitioner, educator and designer who has been leading many sustainability educators across the globe delivering capacity building activities in 50 countries in both rural and urban contexts.

She has specialised in working with intergovernmental agencies, educational institutions, and the United Nations in the creation of policy guidelines for sustainable development. She has been named as one of the world’s 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders by ABC Carbon three times in a row.

Jane Rasbash​​, co-founder of the Grassroots Leadership Training, works in sustainable development using an empowerment and engaged spirituality approach. Jane is based in Findhorn Ecovillage, and has taken a significant part in the delivery of Ecovillage Design Education programmes in Findhorn, Sieben Linden, Myanmar and Thailand.

Jane is also a life coach who mentors leaders in the South, often working in incredibly challenging situations.

Get involved

Dr Deborah Benham​​, founder of Wild at Heart and UK Coordinator for 8 Shields, is active in many environmental fields, including environmental education, sustainable community development, social and ecological sustainability.

She focusses on supporting the regeneration of healthy, resilient communities and natural ecosystems, and has years of valuable experience in delivering workshops and working together with global changemakers to support sustainability and regeneration programmes and projects.

Develop your core skills of participatory facilitation and learning to unleash the creativity inherent in edge work. Registrations for the ToT in Findhorn are open until 9 November 2018 (start date 10 November). Find out more information and register here​.

This Author

Nuvaquahu Namingha is digital marketing and partnerships officer for Gaia Education. Gaia Education is an international NGO based in Edinburgh that is actively involved in paving a more sustainable and resilient future and providing educational sustainability programmes to people of all ages and cultural backgrounds.