Theresa May’s announcement that the UK is to set a legally binding target to end its contribution to climate change by 2050 has been met with a mixed reaction.

The Government will lay out legislation in Parliament on Wednesday to set a new target to cut emissions to “net zero” by the middle of the century. But while some climate change figures welcomed the move, others gave a more cautious assessment.

Lord Deben, chairman of the Government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change, praised the “major commitment” and said he was looking forward to cross-party consensus on the issue.

Loophole

“This step will send a strong signal to other countries to follow suit – and will help to drive the global effort to tackle climate change required by the Paris Agreement,” he said.

Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of business group the CBI, said UK companies were “squarely behind” the commitment and called it the “right response to the global climate crisis”.

But she urged the Government to ensure the legislation was followed by long-term policies to support decarbonisation across the economy.

“Some sectors will need clear pathways to enable investment in low-carbon technologies, and it is vital that there is cross-Government coordination on the policies and regulation needed to deliver a clean future,” she said.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said it was a “big moment” for the climate, but added there were “questions to be asked about (the) offsetting loophole”, seemingly in reference to the plan’s allowance for international carbon credits which allow the UK to pay to offset its emissions elsewhere in the world.

Future

Craig Bennett, UK chief executive of Friends of the Earth, said Mrs May’s premiership had been “characterised by chronic inaction on climate breakdown” and 2050 is “still too slow to address catastrophic climate change”.

He said: “It is disappointing that the Government has ignored its climate advisers’ recommendation to exclude carbon offsets – as well as caving into Treasury pressure to review the target in five years’ time.

“Fiddling the figures would put a huge dent in our ability to avoid catastrophic climate change – and the Government’s credibility for taking this issue seriously. Having declared a climate emergency, Parliament must act to close these loopholes.

“2050 is still too slow to address catastrophic climate change, the UK can and must go faster. The next prime minister must legislate to end our contribution to climate breakdown earlier, put carbon-cutting at the centre of policy-making and pull the plug on plans for more roads, runways and fracking. It’s now time to build the carbon-free future that science requires and the public are so loudly demanding.”

Gareth Redmond King, head of climate change at the environmental charity WWF, said the announcement was a “crucial first step”.

Death sentence

He added: “If we want future generations to live on a viable planet where the mass extinctions we’re witnessing halt, food security is ensured and coastal regions are safe, then Government must accelerate policies and commit resource to slashing emissions, heat our homes with clean energy and make climate action a priority across all departments.”

He said the speed in developing innovative technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines in the past decade should provide hope the UK could go faster and reach net zero by 2045.

Meanwhile, shadow energy secretary Rebecca Long Bailey raised concerns over how the commitment would be put into practice.

“While this announcement is welcome in theory, in practice it comes from a Conservative government that is off track to meet existing climate targets, that has no plans for legislation or investment needed to cut emissions, and that has dismantled the UK renewable energy sector while pushing fracking,” she said.

Extinction Rebellion, the protest group that brought parts of London to a standstill with demonstrations in April, said Mrs May’s 2050 target was a “death sentence”. “People are already dying and this will only get worse with far off dates,” the group said.

Commitment

“Were we to put our minds to it and do what is required to mobilise society to address the threat with the seriousness it deserves, the UK could embrace transformative change and decarbonise in years not decades.

“We welcome that the Prime Minister is finally talking about the emergency. This is a testament to the public pressure – including the more than 1,000 people willingly arrested for this cause – that is forcing politicians to confront the existential reality of the climate and ecological emergency. But it is not nearly enough.”

Environment analyst Tom Burke said there was “quite a gap” emerging between announcements on climate change and the implementation of policies. He told BBC Breakfast: “The reality is it’s what you do, not what you say, that matters.

“There’s been quite a gap, in a way, emerging recently between what the Government has said it wants to do on climate change and the fact that the policies aren’t in place to deliver on the existing budgets, let alone the carbon budgets we’ll need if we’re to meet this new commitment.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This report is based on copy provided by the Press Association.

A group of thirty artists, performers and activists arrived at the National Portrait Gallery to disrupt the announcement ceremony of the BP Portrait Award this week.

While some of the group linked arms in doorways and chained themselves to gates to prevent party guests from entering the building, others handed out a fake awards programme that challenged BP’s long-standing sponsorship of the award.

You can read the fake programme here.

Live art

Meanwhile, a group of portrait artists and cartoonists created live artwork outside the gallery.

Some of the artwork depicted activists from West Papua, Mexico, Samoa, and the US Gulf Coast who are fighting back against BP and the oil industry’s pollution, corruption, and climate devastation.

Other pieces showed the BP executives who bear responsibility for these impacts – including those who were guests at tonight’s award ceremony.

The protesters succeeded in preventing entrance to the gallery for thirty minutes, creating a large queue of guests.

Protesters were then able to speak to the guests, hand out fake programmes and showcase the live rebel art display, as well as reading out quotes from the environmental defenders featured in the portraits.

Defiant singing

At the main entrance security guards attempted to roughly drag protesters away from the gates, but the activists succeeded in attaching themselves to and blocking the entranceway.

The second front entrance was also blocked by a team of activists, while at the rear of the building four protesters linked themselves together at the bottom of the entrance ramp.

After half an hour with all three pedestrian entrances blocked, the gallery decided to take unusual measures to get guests into the party.

Guests were directed to clamber awkwardly over a wall with assistance from security to enter the gallery, creating a long slow-moving queue along the street.

At 7.30pm, having achieved their goal of delaying the start of the award party, the protesters removed themselves from the doorways and gathered to sing songs of defiance before departing.

Creative action

This action followed the unprecedented news that one of the judges of this year’s Portrait Award – leading artist Gary Hume – has publicly called for the gallery to end its relationship with BP.

His call was echoed this morning by eight former exhibitors in the BP Portrait Award exhibition, including two former award winners, in a letter to Director Nicholas Cullinan.

Earlier this year, the gallery turned down a £1 million grant from the Sackler family on ethical grounds, due to their links with the opioid crisis.

Campaigners point out that this shows that the gallery can make ethical funding decisions when it chooses to do so.

BP or not BP? are the creative action group behind today’s protest. They have staged more than 50 rebel performances at BP-sponsored arts institutions.

Veneer of respectability

Sarah Horne, a member of the group, said: “The climate crisis is unfolding at terrifying speed. Those who have done least to cause the problem are worst hit, while oil companies like BP continue to rake in massive profits while actively making the problem worse.

“BP spends tens of millions every year lobbying against climate action and blocking clean energy alternatives, while pushing for access to yet more oil and gas that we cannot afford to burn.

“The National Portrait Gallery needs to stop giving this destructive and irresponsible company a veneer of respectability it does not deserve.”

Benny Wenda is an Indigenous leader from West Papua, a nation under brutal occupation by the Indonesian government and where BP runs a major gas extraction project. 

A print of Benny Wenda’s portrait (by the artist Dale Grimshaw) was one of the images displayed by the protesters outside the gallery today.

Illegal occupation

Mr Wenda said: “BP need to admit that they’re operating in the middle of a genocide. BP, you can’t just say that you’re only in West Papua for business.

“If you continue to work with this illegal occupation, then you’re part of the problem. You fund the illegal Indonesian government. They misuse your funds to buy guns and equipment to kill my people.

“You take our raw materials, make money, and give some of it to the occupier. We West Papuans see none of the benefits. Whether it’s human rights violations or global warming, BP’s actions directly impact my people.”

Another of today’s protesters, Deborah Locke, said: “We are sorry to cause disruption to guests at the Portrait Award this evening. We know that most of the people attending this event were not involved in the gallery’s decision to promote BP.

“But in the face of the climate emergency, and BP’s ongoing complicity in human rights abuses, we feel this is a step we have to take.

“We hope that guests at this event will understand the importance of these issues and bear with us.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from BP or not BP? 

Image: Mark Kerrison.

UN Environment published an unusually stark critique of carbon offsetting on Monday. On Tuesday, the article was taken down, following queries by Climate Home News.

In the original article, archived by the Wayback Machine, a climate specialist at the UN organisation warned against considering carbon offsets as “our get-out-jail-free card”.

Niklas Hagelberg wrote: “The era of carbon offsets is drawing to a close. Buying carbon credits in exchange for a clean conscience while you carry on flying, buying diesel cars and powering your home with fossil fuels is no longer acceptable or widely accepted.”

Conflicting messages

Since 2008, UN Environment has claimed to be climate neutral, based on buying carbon credits from a scheme administered by UN Climate Change.

While not indicating any change to that policy, the commentary appeared to attack the underlying concept of polluters paying others to cut emissions on their behalf.

Contacted by Climate Home News, Hagelberg blamed the editing process for introducing some “conflicting messages” to his original text and said a revised version would be published shortly.

Hagelberg continued: “This is a web story not an official position paper. However [UN Environment] does see offsets as an intermediate solution.”

At time of publication, spokespersons at UN Environment and UN Climate Change had not responded to requests for comment.

Carbon credits 

At issue is a system set up under the Kyoto Protocol to allow rich countries to gain carbon credits by investing in emission reduction projects in the developing world. 

UN Climate Change has since repurposed it as a voluntary mechanism for businesses, organisations and individuals to offset some of their carbon footprint.

Last August, UN Climate Change came under fire for releasing a video promoting carbon offsets as an easy remedy to climate change.

Entitled “keep calm and offset”, the advertisement appeared to suggest that viewers could lead a carbon-heavy lifestyle as long as they offset their emissions. It was taken down after a backlash.

Carbon offsets have long been a controversial proposition to tackle the climate crisis. At the last UN climate summit in December, negotiators were unable to reach consensus on whether and how to continue Kyoto-era offset schemes under the Paris Agreement. Talks resume in Bonn, Germany this month.

Problematic tool 

In parallel, the International Civil Aviation Organization is considering what types of carbon credits can be used by airlines to offset their emissions growth.

Transport & Environment, a Brussels-based campaign group for cleaner transport, urged UN Environment to restore the article “in the interest of effective climate policy”.

Campaigner  Andrew Murphy said: “With the aviation sector targeting offsetting as its get-out-of-jail-card for climate action, this piece threw some necessary cold water on what is an extremely problematic climate tool.”

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article was first published by Climate Home News. 

Agblobashie, a slum in Ghana’s capital, is plagued by electronic waste from more industrialized nations. The health of local people suffers as a result.

Those smartphones everyone rushes out to buy, the old ones people casually toss in the rubbish bin – they have to go somewhere.

Why have humans become so addicted to throwing things out that no longer function as opposed to repairing them, and, more importantly, how can they keep discarded electronics from poisoning those who live on the other side of the world? 

Industrial pollution

We’ve grown accustomed to convenience. The price of purchasing new electronic devices often costs far less than simply replacing them — I recently discovered this while trying to repair a 15-year-old TV where the parts necessary to fix the gadget were no longer manufactured.

Many people living in industrialized nations take for granted the fact they can replace a broken computer or shattered iPhone the moment their contract permits. Few give pause to reflect upon the way such behavior impacts others. 

The citizens of Accra, Ghana would probably beg to differ with such wanton disposal. The Korle Lagoon in the city ranks as one of the most polluted bodies of water on earth.

This lake regularly floods, impacting the poor living in the vicinity most. Even though the city’s waste management department cleans the water daily, they only can keep up with 60 percent of the refuge entering the waterway, and the rest flows into the sea. 

Several industries in the region also contribute to high levels of pollution. But the fact remains that a huge portion of the waste clogging Ghana’s waterways stems from foreign sources. 

Colonial legacy

According to research, seven million people perish every year due to air pollution, with the nations of Ghana, Nigeria and India most impacted.

The e-dumping site in Agblobashie is a primary source of this pollution, along with vehicle exhausts and particulates from fires which provide the major source of heat and cooking fuel for many in the region. 

Humans can reduce the amount of electronic waste they produce, but few take measures to recycle their gadgets properly. Upgrading has become the new normal, and people willingly wait in line for hours to upgrade their devices.

But the very devices so many casually toss in the rubbish contain a ton of toxic chemicals which leach into soil and waterways when discarded.

What happens in Agblobashie boils down to a matter of racism, imperialism and the incessant human battle over vital resources. 

Dioxins

Many electronic components carry little cash value — plastic has grown so ubiquitous, the folks at Lego probably could function fine on ocean waste alone — wiring, especially copper wiring, remains a rich source of revenue.

While techniques exist to harvesting this wire from old gadgets, the impoverished people living in the region cannot afford such technology. Therefore, they continue to remove the insulation from this wiring by burning it.

Burning wire insulation releases toxic dioxins into the air. Dioxins do exist everywhere in the environment but proliferate in areas where backyard burning reigns supreme such as in Agblobashie.

Anyone who has ever stood downwind of a traditional paper mill has inhaled the nauseating aroma emitted by the toxin. 

Dioxins find a home in human and animal fat, and they nest there for quite some time. Dioxins remain in the body anywhere from 7-11 years, and they accumulate in the food chain as well. Those who regularly consume animal products can raise the levels of dioxins in their bodies significantly. 

Virtual reality

Many people in Ghana recognize the extent of the problem, and they take measures to address the issue of e-trash.

Two game designers have created a virtual reality game aimed at educating the populace about the safe handling of discarded electronics.

The plan holds promise, as virtual reality is quickly becoming a very popular method of teaching consumers about their health outcomes and environmental impact, due to its easy-to-digest format in a digitally-focused world. In addition, there’s also a Facebook group dedicated to cleaning up Agblobashie.

Most Americans pay little heed to the amount of trash they produce. Municipalities typically charge a flat fee for waste disposal, meaning few pay attention to what they toss in the rubbish.

And around the globe, scrappers – people who eke out an existence from the discarded remains of others – process said waste and remove usable components such as wiring. These people provide a valuable service that few respect. They deserve the tools necessary to do such work without putting their health and the health of the planet at risk.

Dumping ground

As the world’s wealthiest nations continue to turn countries such as Ghana into their personal dumping grounds, investing in the infrastructure for letting people process refuge safely seems more than fair. 

Technology has made life easier for many, but that need not mean others should suffer for their privilege.

This Author 

​​​​​​​Kate Harveston is a vegan health and sustainability writer and the editor of women’s wellness blog, So Well, So Woman.

The Wildlife Trusts’ annual challenge – 30 Days Wild – calls on everyone to go wild every day in June.

This year looks set to be bigger and wilder than ever. So far a record number of 60,000 people, families, schools, businesses and care homes throughout the UK have signed up to receive a free pack of ideas and to take part.

30 Days Wild encourages everyone to enjoy nature in our neighbourhoods through daily Random Acts of Wildness: listening to bird song, gazing at butterflies, growing borage for bees and making the most of our parks, gardens and school grounds. Evidence shows that taking part can also make us happier and healthier.

Fantastic challenge

Ellie Harrison, presenter of Countryfile and President of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, said: “Being outside in nature makes us all well. The smallest moments connecting – the surprise of a beetle revealing its wings; the fleeting secrets of bats at dusk; or the puff of valuable pollen from flowers we saw as weeds – all bring us wonder and enchantment.

“This June we’re challenging you to a Random Act of Wildness every single day of the month. What will you be delighted by?”

James McVey of The Vamps said: “30 Days Wild is a fantastic challenge and everyone can take part – whether it’s building a den, listening to the dawn chorus or visiting a favourite wild place, enjoying our wonderful wildlife can help us to feel happier and healthier, I’ll be joining in this June!”

Dr Amir Khan from Channel 5’s GPs Behind Closed Doors said: “Spending time outdoors, enjoying wildlife on our doorstep and in our communities is free and can benefit our mental and physical health in so many ways.

“Spend a few moments every day in June taking part in random acts of wildness – notice something new in nature, climb a tree or create space for nature in your neighbourhood – The Wildlife Trusts has lots of ideas and inspiration to help you make the most of the 30 Days Wild challenge. Go Wild!”

Happier and healthier 

The Wildlife Trust’s Leanne Manchester said: “30 Days Wild is a much-loved challenge and it’s set to be an exciting month for everyone taking part. Experiencing a moment of nature every day on our doorstep or during lunchtime at work is elating in June when wildlife is so active and visible.

“Take time out to sit in a wild spot, enjoy the sunset or feel cool grass between your toes – June is such a beautiful month and the perfect time to go a bit wild.”

The impact of taking part in 30 Days Wild has been tracked by academics at the University of Derby. Their study found that people who did something ‘wild’ each day for a month, felt happier, healthier and more connected to nature, with added benefits for the natural world too.

Miles Richardson from the University of Derby said: “Our research looked at the impact of 30 Days Wild on 1000 people, two months after completing the challenge.

“All those taking part benefitted, feeling 30 percent healthier than when they started on average. People who reported a disconnect from nature and who spend less time outdoors, showed the greatest improvement in happiness and pro-conservation behaviours.

“At a time when poor mental health is on the rise and the decline of our wildlife show no sign of slowing down, 30 Days Wild demonstrates what a much-needed new relationship with nature might look like, for everyone, throughout the year.”

Care homes

This year 30 Days Wild is encouraging care homes to share the joy of nature with their residents. For the first time, there’s a specially tailored activity pack and over 350 care homes have so far signed up to take part.

Among them is the Your Health Ltd group, which has ten care homes across England and trialled 30 Days Wild activities last year. The homes saw some remarkable benefits as a result of taking part, with residents experiencing less anxiety and fewer falls.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust volunteer Louise Baker, who trialled activities in the residential homes last year, said: “It doesn’t matter where our homes are, each will take something from the challenge and no two days, or activities will be the same.

“Our homes occupy urban streets, landscaped parkland and rural locations – one home will enjoy the birdsong heard in its suburban garden, while another will record wildlife that thrives in its wildflower meadow and orchard. We are looking forward to another magical month.”

Sign-up to 30 Days Wild is still open, download a free pack! Over the next month, thousands of wonderful experiences will be shared on social media. Take a look at #30DaysWild @30DaysWild and see how daily connections with nature are inspiring people to enjoy the wild world around them wherever they live. 

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is content editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Wildlife Trust. 

Image: Stockypics, Flickr. 

News of devastating climate change, species extinction and dwindling green spaces around the world rolls in daily. It has never been more important that we take action to protect nature on our own doorstep.

The North Devon UNESCO Biosphere Partnership is extremely concerned by the pressure on North Devon’s world class environment from rapid development and intensive land use. 

In response, we are  launching Pledge for Nature! – a new local initiative to galvanise community action for nature’s recovery.

Natural systems

Intensive land use has led to rapid declines in the quality of some habitats and populations of some of our key species like breeding cuckoos, lapwings and curlews in our farmland, salmon, sea trout and freshwater pearl mussels in the Taw and Torridge river systems, and even commoner species like hedgehogs, swallows and house martins, wildflowers and insects.

The declines of these “canaries” of our natural systems should be a wake-up call for everyone. Immediate action is needed to help North Devon’s nature to flourish again in our farmland, gardens, rivers and open spaces.

North Devon’s local economy of agriculture, tourism, forestry and fisheries depends on the natural environment, and our natural systems are also crucial for tackling climate change and safeguarding future generations.

It is therefore essential to maintain the world class environment of the area, which was the reason north Devon was awarded UNESCO status. 

Call to action

The priority is to give more space for nature and to create wilder areas – in our farmland, public spaces and gardens.

Small bands of dedicated volunteers, farmers and conservation organisations are already working hard to conserve nature – but their efforts are not enough and the problems can only be solved by galvanising many more people who know and love the area. 

Each quarter the project will issue a “call to action” with 3-4 projects to engage the community in voluntary actions for nature. Examples might be: “give 10 percent of your lawn over to a wildflower meadow”; “trim your farm hedges every 3 years rather than every year”; “put up a nestbox for swifts”; “join a community tree-planting team”. 

Individuals will be able to pledge their action on a map-based website, where they will also find technical advice and support from Biosphere partners.

Over three years, starting late autumn 2019, we aim to engage a minimum of 1000 volunteers, including at least 100 farmers/landowners.

Get involved

Through these voluntary actions, we aim to improve nature in at least: 400ha of pasture and arable land, 50km of hedges; 200ha of woodland, 300 gardens, 30 urban spaces or schools, 20km of road verges and 20km of rivers and streams.

We also aim to deliver specific targeted actions for at least 5 priority or declining species or invasive non-native species, and encourage at least 10,000 new trees. 

The total cost of this three-year project will be around £90,000. We are asking the National Lottery Heritage Fund to cover the majority of the coordination costs, but we urgently need your help to raise at least £10,000 as match funding to demonstrate that our community cares. 

If you love North Devon’s nature, help us by donating here, and telling your family, friends, employers and colleagues to help too! 

Bright future 

Tourism, forestry, agriculture and fishing – the mainstays of our local economy – depend on a thriving natural environment, which is also crucial for safeguarding us from the effects of climate change.

But nature in North Devon is in trouble: breeding birds such as cuckoos, lapwings and curlews are heading towards local extinction.

Salmon and freshwater pearl mussels in the Taw and Torridge rivers are in grave decline. Swifts, house martins, hedgehogs, bees and butterflies are becoming less and less abundant.

More than 92 percent of our flower-rich Culm grassland has disappeared over the past 100 years. These shocking statistics should serve as a wake-up call to us all.

It’s a grave situation, but with community action and support, we believe North Devon’s environmental fortunes can be given a bright future for the benefit of future generations. 

This Author 

Mike Moser is chair of the Nature Improvement Group at North Devon UNESCO Biosphere. If you love North Devon’s nature, help us by donating here, and telling your family, friends, employers and colleagues to help too! 

Image: A_Peach, Flickr. 

The quarterly update of Australia’s greenhouse gases, which span December 2018 to March 2019, showed a 0.7 percent hike in emissions.

All sectors were up, save for agriculture and electricity. Pollution from the manufacturing, construction and commercial sectors and domestic heating shot up by 6 percent.

The figures were released five days past their due date, despite a senate order calling on the government to meet the deadline. But before they were made public, the data did appear alongside an interview with energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor in The Australian.

Pollution data

Energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor told the newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, that the country was on track to honour its Paris Agreement target of 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. He has previously said this would be done “in a canter”.

Data published by the Department of Environment and Energy in December, however, showed that the country was on course to reduce its emissions by 7 percent by 2030.

Shadow minister for climate change and energy Mark Butler simply dismissed Taylor’s comments as “a lie”.

Deputy leader of the Australian Greens Adam Bandt said: “The minister has continued with his contempt of the parliament, seemingly dropping the pollution figures to the Murdoch media before making them public.

“We wouldn’t accept the government selectively dropping the regular unemployment figures to its favourite media outlet. This pollution data needs to be released promptly, regularly and transparently.”

Cemented failure

It continues a trend of rising emissions since 2016, making the Paris target increasingly difficult to achieve, experts warned.

Climate analyst Ketan Joshi told Climate Home News: “The fact that we haven’t made a big dent in it, is very, very worrying.

“We have made reductions in our electricity sector, a lot of that comes down to technologies such as wind and solar. That is often framed as us on the way to meeting our Paris target, but of course that’s just one sector of Australia’s emissions.”

Head of the climate and energy programme at the Australia Institute think tank Richie Merzian told Climate Home News the newly released data also cemented the failure of one of the government’s key policies to combat climate change: the Climate Solutions Fund.

The fund, which incentivises emissions cuts rather than penalising polluters, has been “insufficient in terms of the reductions that were supposed to flow from the abatement purchase”, he said.

Top issue

In April, the Coalition government axed the fund further, opting to spread $2bn over 15 years rather than 10 years.

Merzian said: “So their plan is to do less of the same, and that plan has failed today and will continue to fail.” The government has said it intends to meet the Paris target using credits won in the era of the Kyoto Protocol – a measure most countries have ruled out.

Merzian continued: “Even with Australian government planning to use its credits from Kyoto, it will still fail.” 

The government’s delayed release of the figures comes amid growing awareness on climate change in Australia.

A poll by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that the environment ranked a top issue for 29 percent of participants, up by 9 percent in the 2016 election.

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article was first published on Climate Home News.

Ibedrola is currently consulting the environment ministry over building a 590-megawatt solar farm in the Western region of Extramadurra, it said in a statement.

With a €300 million investment planned, the so-called Francisco Pizzarro plant will supply energy to 375,000 people every year and employ up to 1000 people in the process of construction, the company said.

The announcement comes amid increasingly competitive renewables prices and a favourable political atmosphere.

Falling costs

Since becoming minister for the ecological transition almost exactly one year ago Teresa Ribera has introduced climate legislation aiming to achieve 100 percent renewables by 2050.

In early October, Ribera scrapped the so-called “sun tax” – an unpopular levy on solar power affecting individuals and small businesses.

The government has also pledged to install between 6,000 and 7,000MW of renewable power every year until 2030.

Sergio de Otto, head of the Renewables Foundation told Climate Home News: “It’s clear that policies led by Teresa Ribera have given investors more confidence to throw themselves into projects like the one that Ibedrola has announced.” 

De Otto said costs for building renewable energy were falling “spectacularly”.

Extra growth

De Otto continued: “From our perspective, it is necessary that we – citizens and small businesses – lead the energy transition to 100 percent renewables by 2050, but we also understand the need for large solar plants produced by companies.

“We believe that in future these great installations will coexist with an extraordinary growth in small-scale renewables production. These are therefore two complementary models”

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article was first published on Climate Home News. 

The National Portrait Gallery (NPG) is facing intense pressure over its controversial oil sponsor, BP.

Artist Gary Hume – one of BP Portrait Award (BPPA) judges – wrote to NPG Director Nicholas Cullinan calling for an end to BP’s sponsorship of the prize on the eve of the award ceremony. 

The Brighton-based artist Charlie Schaffer was announced as the winner of the award during a National Portrait Gallery reception last night.

Climate emergency

Eight leading portrait artists previously shortlisted for the award multiple times – including two former winners – have echoed Hume’s demand and sent their own letter calling for the Gallery ‘to not simply acknowledge the climate emergency, but to act accordingly’.

This comes just months after the Gallery rejected a £1 million grant from the Sackler Trust over its ties to the opioid crisis in the US and led to Tate, the Guggenheim and other major cultural institutions shunning future donations from the family.

Judge and artist Gary Hume came to prominence as part of the Young British Artists movement in the ’90s, has been shortlisted for the Turner Prize and elected to the Royal Academy.

He expressed his ‘discomfort’ at BP’s continued sponsorship of the annual portrait prize in his letter to Cullinan (full text below), citing the ‘undeniable’ evidence that our planet is rapidly changing and that BP is ‘actively exacerbating that crisis’:

Hume said: “Recognising that we are in a climate emergency means taking steps that we might not have planned for and, for me, refusing to launder the oil industry’s image is a step that the art world now needs to take.”

Artistic decisions

Hume also calls for an end to the practice of BP’s Head of Arts, Culture & Paralympics sitting on the award’s judging panel: “No corporate funder should compromise our artistic integrity.

“There should be no role for an oil company in the artistic decisions of any cultural organisation, and especially not in determining the winner of the world’s leading portrait award.”

Highly respected portrait artists, including BP Portrait Award winners Wim Heldens (2011) and Craig Wylie (2008), are also speaking out. 

The artists highlighted the pressure the Gallery puts on artists to compromise on their values in a letter to Cullinan to sent yesterday: “That we must be prepared to associate our work with BP, providing a veneer of respectability to one of the world’s worst polluters and drivers of environmental destruction simply to participate, is deeply unfair.”

Last month, BP received widespread criticism at its AGM over its billion dollar investments in new oil and gas, a business plan which fails to align with the Paris climate goals. The company was also challenged over its continued attempts to obstruct climate legislation.

Shifting consciousness 

The other artists – all former BPPA winners, shortlisted artists and exhibitors – are Paul Benney (has exhibited at 8 BPPAs, won the public choice award twice and been shortlisted twice), Henry Christian-Slane (won the BP Young Artist award in 2017), Alan Coulson (selected for the BP Portrait Award in 2010, 2011, 2012 (winning third prize) and 2014), David Eichenberg (has exhibited 3 times and came 3rd in 2010), Darvish Fakhr (won the BP Travel Award in 2004, also exhibited in 4 other years) and Raoul Martinez (has exhibited 3 times).

The Gallery has regularly faced opposition to its BP sponsorship deal, from creative activist actions inside the Award exhibition to winner of the 2017 Young Portrait Award (and letter signatory) Henry Christian-Slane donating a share of his prize money to Greenpeace in protest at the oil company.

In the same year, Culture Unstained submitted a formal complaint outlining how the Gallery’s BP partnership breached key human rights clauses of its ‘Ethical Fundraising Policy’.

Jess Worth, Co-Director of Culture Unstained, said: “It is unprecedented for an award’s judge to speak out against its sponsor, and extremely brave of artists who have previously benefited from the award to do the same.

“This is a sign of how dramatically consciousness about climate change has shifted just in the last few months. Sticking its fingers in its ears and hoping this all goes away is no longer an option for the National Portrait Gallery. It must now drop BP or face catastrophic damage to its reputation.”

Due diligence

Chris Garrard, Co-Director of Culture Unstained, added: “The Gallery’s significant decision to reject a grant from the Sackler Trust came after careful scrutiny from its ‘Advisory Ethics Committee’, a body newly created last year.

“Its BP sponsorship deal is yet to face the same scrutiny. In fact, the Gallery has previously admitted it has no record of any proper ‘due diligence’ checks on its BP partnership.

“The Gallery must demonstrate that it is consistent in its decision-making, otherwise the public will rightly question why BP is getting special treatment and a seat on the judging panel.”

BP has sponsored the Portrait Award for 30 years, taking over from the tobacco giant John Player. Its current 5-year sponsorship deal was announced in 2016 alongside deals with the British Museum (sponsoring special exhibitions); the Royal Opera House (to continue sponsoring the annual ‘BP Big Screens’) and the Royal Shakespeare Company (where BP currently sponsors ‘BP £5 tickets’, the scheme for 16-25 year olds).

Tragedy

All these institutions are coming under increasing pressure to drop BP, with the British Museum in February facing the biggest protest in its 260-year history, by activist theatre group BP or not BP?, which made the links between BP’s activities in Iraq, climate change, war and colonialism.

On Tuesday the Royal Opera House will face its biggest ever protest from hundreds of Extinction Rebellion activists, who have pledged to creatively disrupt the flagship ‘BP Big Screen’ broadcast of Romeo and Juliet in Trafalgar Square, by ‘acting out the world’s greatest tragedy as you’ve never seen it before’.

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from Culture Unstained. 

Image: A performance by Children Against Global Warming at the National Portrait Gallery in August 2015, during Art Not Oil’s Festivoil Day of Action. Philip Grey, courtesy Art Not Oil. Source: Hyperallergic.

Billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is supporting fossil fuel energy schemes around the world, undermining the UK’s commitment to tackle climate breakdown, MPs said.

UK Export Finance (UKEF), which provides loans, insurance and guarantees for firms operating overseas, gave £2.5 billion to fossil fuel projects between 2013/14 and 2017/18.

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) called on the government to end support for new fossil fuel energy projects by 2021.

Billions

The EAC said there was an “unacceptably high” level of support for fossil fuel projects in poorer countries, with £2.4 billion of the funding going to low or middle-income nations, potentially locking them into decades of dependency on oil and gas.

The committee’s chairwoman Mary Creagh said: “Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 will mean ending our addiction to dirty fossil fuels.

“The Government claims that the UK is a world leader on tackling climate change, but behind the scenes the UK’s export finance schemes are handing out billions of pounds of taxpayers money to develop fossil fuel projects in poorer countries. This locks them into dependency on high carbon energy for decades to come.

Mix

“This is unacceptable. It is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is and end UK Export Finance’s support for fossil fuels.”

A UKEF spokesman said: “The UK Government fully recognises the importance of tackling climate change and the need for a mix of energy sources and technologies as the world transitions to a low carbon economy.

“We welcome the committee’s report and are working with colleagues across government to consider our response.”

This Author

David Hughes is the Press Association’s political editor.