Tag Archives: government

TTIP: MPs demand transparency and ‘right to regulate’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




MPs in the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee have demanded that “a right to regulate” be enshrined in the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union and the United States.

There are growing fears – highlighted in today’s Ecologist with reference to Canada’s salutary experience – that TTIP’s fiercely investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism would allow foreign companies and private investors to sue governments for enacting ‘business unfriendly’ legislation.

Where countries legislate for environmental protection, labour standards or the state’s right to run public services – like the National Health Service – ISDS could allow corporations to sue governments for the loss of future profits in secret tribunals.

As the report highlights, ISDS could also allow “the possibility of US oil companies challenging environmental regulations on fracking.” Other examples include challenging regulations on chemicals in food and cosmetics as well as EU restrictions on genetically modified organisms.

The Committee therefore demands that “a statement ensuring the right to regulate by Sovereign Nations takes precedence over an investor’s right to invest is placed at the heart of the Government’s response on ISDS provisions”, also insisting on “the exclusion of any clauses which would require the State to pay in all outcomes.”

And – with specific reference to public concerns over NHS privatization – the MPs “urge the Government to ensure that an unequivocal statement guaranteeing the protection of public services at present – and the right to expand them in the future – is set out in any ISDS provisions.”

The demands are made in a new report just published by the (BIS) Committee which concludes: “We do not believe that the case has yet been made for ISDS clauses in TTIP.”

Government slammed for ISDS silence

The MPs also add a barb aimed squarely at the British government: “The European Commission is currently consulting Member States on the ISDS provisions. We are deeply concerned that the UK Government is not planning to submit a formal response to that consultation.

“We disagree with this approach. We argue that a formal response should be submitted and for that response to be made available for public scrutiny.”

The Committee argues that the Government’s secretive approach on the ISDS issue “does not give the impression that the Government is treating seriously the concerns that have been raised about the range or use of such clauses and serves only to fuel the existing scepticism held by opponents of TTIP.

“It also has the potential to leave the UK on the margins of any debate to better frame ISDS negotiations. We recommend that the Government produces a formal response to the consultation exercise and for it to be published at the same time it is submitted to the European Commission.”

This is not the first government report to question the need for ISDS clauses. On 10 March, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) argued that the trade deal should not allow US companies to sue European nations when they pass environmental laws that hurt their profits.

The EAC also found that the trade deal could result in a “race to the bottom”, where attempts to align EU environmental safeguards to those in the US – which are generally seen to be weaker – could undermine or dilute environmental protections.

Secretive negotiations against the public interest

The Committee also takes aim at the secretive nature of the negotiations between the EU anmd the US on this major free trade deal, which it says has resulted in an “oversimplification and misrepresentation of arguments on both sides.”

“Everyone involved in the debate on TTIP-campaigners, lobbyists, the UK Government and the European Commission-must ensure that an evidence-based approach is at the heart of any TTIP debate.”

Adrian Bailey MP, Chair of the BIS Committee commented: “More detail needs to be made available to allow greater public scrutiny of this extensive trade agreement. Unfortunately, in the absence of that detail or undertakings that negotiating texts will be made public, the debate on the trade agreement has become polarised.”

The high degree of secrecy means it is impossible to monitor or evaluate what issues are being taken into account, the report explains. This echoes concerns previously raised by MPs about whether or not environmental risks are being taken into consideration.

However, because the negotiation process is ongoing, and much of the detail has yet to be agreed on or made public, it is “not possible to come to a definitive conclusion on the benefits or risks of an extensive trade agreement”, the BIS Committee states.

The Committee argues that the European Commission and the UK Government “must shoulder some of the blame” for the fact that only a minimal level of information has been made available about TTIP. Lord Livingston, Minister of State for Trade and Investment, agreed, telling the Committee that “a greater level of transparency was necessary and that this was now being addressed.”

The European Commission recently published some EU negotiating texts; however, it refuses to publish agendas or minutes of meetings held. It also argues that for data protection reasons, it cannot publish the names of meeting participants without their consent.

 

 

Action: an International Day of Action against all ‘free trade’ deals is planned for Saturday 18 April in association with Stop TTIP.

Sign an EU-wide petition against TTIP – it already has 1.6 million signatures and has a target of 2 million by October 2015.

Kyla Mandel is Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK. Follow her on Twitter
@kylamandel.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

The report: ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership‘, House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2014-15.

This article is an expanded and edited version of one originally published on DeSmog UK.

 

 




391624

Truth is our country Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As Jesus told the people of Nazareth, a prophet is without honor in his own country. In the United States, this is also true of journalists.

In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and for the corporations. Anyone who tells the truth, whether journalist or whistleblower, is fired or prosecuted or has to hide out in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, like Julian Assange, or in Moscow, like Edward Snowden, or is tortured and imprisoned, like Bradley Manning.

Mexican journalists pay an even higher price. Those who report on government corruption and on the drug cartels pay with their lives.

The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has as an entry a list by name of journalists murdered in Mexico. This is the List of Honor. Wikipedia reports than more than 100 Mexican journalists have been killed or disappeared in the 21st century.

Despite intimidation the Mexican press has not abandoned its job. Because of your courage, I regard this award bestowed on me as the greatest of honors.

A daily fraud perpetuated on readers, viewers and listeners

In the United States real journalists are scarce and are becoming more scarce. Journalists have morphed into a new creature. Gerald Celente calls US journalists “presstitutes”, a word formed from press prostitute. In other words, journalists in the United States are whores for the government and for the corporations.

The few real journalists that remain are resigning. Last year Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year veteran reporter with CBS resigned on the grounds that it had become too much of a fight to get truth reported. She was frustrated that CBS saw its purpose to be a protector of the powerful, not a critic.

Recently Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, explained why he resigned. His stories about the wrongdoings of the banking giant, HSBC, were spiked, because HSBC is an important advertiser for the Telegraph. Osborne says:

“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”

Last summer former New York Times editor Jill Abramson in a speech at the Chautauqua Institution said that the New York Times withheld information at the request of the White House. She said that for a number of years the press in general did not publish any stories that upset the White House. She justified this complete failure of journalism on the grounds that “journalists are Americans, too. I consider myself to be a patriot.”

So in the United States journalists lie for the government because they are patriotic, and their readers and listeners believe the lies because they are patriotic.

Stripped of Truth, journalism becomes propaganda

Our view differs from the view of the New York Times editor. The view of those of us here today is that our country is not the United States, it is not Mexico, our country is Truth. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.

Recently, Brian Williams, the television news anchor at NBC, destroyed his career because he mis-remembered an episode of more than a decade ago when he was covering the Iraq War. He told his audience that a helicopter in which he was with troops in a war zone as a war correspondent was hit by ground fire and had to land.

But the helicopter had not been hit by ground fire. His fellow journalists turned on him, accusing him of lying in order to enhance his status as a war correspondent. On February 10, NBC suspended Brian Williams for 6 months from his job as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News.

Think about this for a moment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the helicopter had to land because it had been hit by gun fire or for some other reason or whether it had to land at all. If it was an intentional lie, it was one of no consequence. If it was a mistake, an episode of ‘alse memory’, why the excessive reaction? Psychologists say that false memories are common.

The same NBC that suspended Brian Williams and the journalists who accused him of lying are all guilty of telling massive lies for the entirety of the 21st century that have had vast consequences.

The United States government has been, and still is, invading, bombing, and droning seven or eight countries on the basis of lies told by Washington and endlessly repeated by the media. Millions of people have been killed, maimed, and displaced by violence based entirely on lies spewing out of the mouths of Washington and its presstitutes.

We know what these lies are: Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Assad of Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Iranian nukes. Pakistani and Yemeni terrorists. Terrorists in Somalia. The endless lies about Gaddafi in Libya, about the Taliban in Afghanistan. And now the alleged Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine.

All of these transparent lies are repeated endlessly, and no one is held accountable. But one journalist mis-remembers one insignificant detail about a helicopter ride and his career is destroyed.

Truth is the enemy of the state

We can safely conclude that the only honest journalism that exists in the United States is provided by alternative media on the Internet. Consequently, the Internet is now under US government attack. ‘Truth is the enemy of the state’ – and Washington intends to shut down truth everywhere.

Washington has appointed Andrew Lack, the former president of NBC News, to be the chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His first official statement compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization.

The purpose of Andrew Lack’s absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack’s message to RT is: “lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.”

The British already did this to Iran’s Press TV.

In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts. One is known as the issue of ‘net neutrality’.

There is an effort by Washington, joined by Internet providers, to charge sites for speedy access. Bandwidth would be sold for fees. Large media corporations, such as CNN and the New York Times, would be able to pay the prices for a quickly opening website.

Smaller independent sites such as mine would be hampered with the slowness of the old ‘dial-up’ type bandwidth. Click on CNN and the site immediately opens. Click on paulcraigroberts.org and wait five minutes. You get the picture. This is Washington’s plan and the corporations’ plan for the Internet.

The vindictive state against the honest citizen

But it gets worse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which attempts to defend our digital rights, reports that so-called ‘free trade agreements’ such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (and the Trans Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership / TTIP) impose prison sentences, massive fines, and property seizures on Internet users who innocently violate vague language in the so-called trade agreements.

Recently, a young American, Barrett Brown, was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a fine of $890,000 for linking to allegedly hacked documents posted on the Internet. Barrett Brown did not hack the documents. He merely linked to an Internet posting, and he has no prospect of earning $890,000 over the course of his life.

The purpose of the US government’s prosecution, indeed, persecution, of this young person is to establish the precedent that anyone who uses Internet information in ways that Washington disapproves, or for purposes that Washington disapproves, is a criminal whose life will be ruined.

The purpose of Barrett Brown’s show trial is to intimidate. It is Washington’s equivalent to the murder of Mexican journalists.

The aim is simple – world domination

But this is prologue. Now we turn to the challenge that Washington presents to the entire world.

It is the nature of government and of technology to establish control. People everywhere face the threat of control by government and technology. But the threat from Washington is much greater. Washington is not content with only controlling the citizens of the United States. Washington intends to control the world.

Michael Gorbachev is correct when he says that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that has happened to humanity, because the Soviet collapse removed the only constraint on Washington’s power.

The Soviet collapse released a terrible evil upon the world. The neoconservatives in Washington concluded that the failure of communism meant that History has chosen American ‘democratic capitalism’, which is neither democratic nor capitalist, to rule the world. The Soviet collapse signaled ‘the End of History’, by which is meant the end of competition between social, political and economic systems.

The choice made by History elevated the United States to the pre-eminent position of being the “indispensable and exceptional” country, a claim of superiority. If the United States is “indispensable”, then others are dispensable. If the United States is exceptional, then others are unexceptional. We have seen the consequences of Washington’s ideology in Washington’s destruction of life and stability in the Middle East.

Washington’s drive for World Hegemony, based as it is on a lie, makes necessary the obliteration of Truth. As Washington’s agenda of supremacy is all encompassing, Washington regards truth as a greater enemy than Russians, Muslim terrorists, and the Islamic State.

As truth is Washington’s worst enemy, everyone associated with the truth is Washington’s enemy.

The empire of chaos and lawlessness

Latin America can have no illusions about Washington. The first act of the Obama Regime was to overthrow the democratic reformist government of Honduras. Currently, the Obama Regime is trying to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.

As Mexicans know, in the 19th century Washington stole half of Mexico. Today Washington is stealing the rest of Mexico. The United States is stealing Mexico via financial imperialism, by subordinating Mexican agriculture and self-sustaining peasant agricultural communities to foreign-owned monoculture, by infecting Mexico with Monsanto’s GMO’s, genetically modified organisms, seeds that do not reproduce, chemicals that destroy the soil and nature’s nutrients, seeds that leave Mexico dependent on Monsanto for food crops with reduced nutritional value.

It is easy for governments to sell out their countries to Washington and the North American corporations. Washington and US corporations pay high prices for subservience to their control. It is difficult for countries, small in economic and political influence, to stand against such power. All sorts of masks are used behind which Washington hides US exploitation-globalism, free trade treaties …

But the world is changing. Putin has revived Russia, and Russia has proved its ability to stand up to Washington. On a purchasing power basis, China now has the largest economy in the world. As China and Russia are now strategic allies, Washington cannot act against one without acting against the other. The two combined exceed Washington’s capabilities.

The United States government has proven to the entire world that it is lawless. A country that flaunts its disrespect of law cannot provide trusted leadership. My conclusion is that Washington’s power has peaked.

One ring to rule them all …

Another reason Washington’s power has peaked is that Washington has used its power to serve only itself and US corporations. The Rest of the World is dispensable and has been left out.

Washington’s power grew out of World War 2. All other economies and currencies were devastated. This allowed Washington to seize the world reserve currency role from Great Britain.

The advantage of being the world reserve currency is that you can pay your bills by printing money. In other words, you can’t go broke as long as other countries are willing to hold your fiat currency as their reserves.

But if other countries were to decide not to hold US currency as reserves, the US could go broke suddenly.

Since 2008 the supply of US dollars has increased dramatically in relation to the ability of the real economy to produce goods and services. Whenever the growth of money outpaces the growth of real output, trouble lies ahead. Moreover, Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions in an effort to force other countries to do its will is causing a large part of the world known as the BRICS to develop an alternative international payments system.

Washington’s arrogance and hubris have caused Washington to ignore the interests of other countries, including those of its allies. Even Washington’s European vassal states show signs of developing an independent foreign policy in their approach to Russia and Ukraine. Opportunities will arise for governments to escape from Washington’s control and to pursue the interests of their own peoples.

The media’s new imperatives: make money; serve the state

The US media has never performed the function assigned to it by the Founding Fathers. The media is supposed to be diverse and independent. It is supposed to confront both government and private interest groups with the facts and the truth.

At times the US media partially fulfilled this role, but not since the final years of the Clinton Regime when the government allowed six mega-media companies to consolidate 90% of the media in their hands.

The mega-media companies that control the US media are GE, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. (GE owns NBC, formerly an independent network. News Corp owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and British newspapers. Disney owns ABC. Time Warner owns CNN.)

The US media is no longer run by journalists. It is run by former government officials and corporate advertising executives. The values of the mega-media companies depend on their federal broadcast licenses.

If the companies go against the government, the companies take a risk that their licenses will not be renewed and, thus, the multi-billion dollar values of the companies fall to zero. If media organizations investigate wrongful activities by corporations, they risk the loss of advertising revenues and become less viable.

Ninety percent control of the media gives government a Ministry of Propaganda, and that is what exists in the United States. Nothing reported in the print or TV media can be trusted.

Today there is a massive propaganda campaign against the Russian government. The incessant flow of disinformation from Washington and the media has destroyed the trust between nuclear powers that President Reagan and President Gorbachev worked so hard to create. According to polls, 62% of the US population now regards Russia as the main threat.

I conclude my remarks with the observation that there can be no greater media failure than to bring back the specter of nuclear war. And that is what the US media has achieved.

 

 

Paul Craig Roberts won the International Award for Excellence in Journalism 2015. This article is a transcript of his acceptance speech at the Club De Periodistas De Mexico, March 12, 2015. It was first published on his website, also available in Spanish.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

 

 




391469

DRC Congo wants to develop Virunga’s oil Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Democratic Republic of Congo’s prime minister has said that his government wants to find a way to explore for oil in the Virunga national park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and will engage in negotiations with the UN body to “explore judiciously”.

Virunga, Africa’s oldest and most biodiverse park, has been on the list of ‘World Heritage in danger’ since 1994, as two decades of armed conflict and intense poaching by militias has taken its toll on the park’s ecosystem.

In 2007, the Congolese ministry of hydrocarbons awarded two oil concessions straddling Virunga’s boundaries to the French major Total, as well as Soco International, a British oil company registered on the London Stock Exchange.

While Total quickly agreed to never explore within the current limits of the park – even in the event of a boundaries change – Soco has carried out exploratory activities in Virunga, concluding a seismic study in July 2014.

The company said it will hand over the results of the seismic survey to the Congolese government in coming months. It is based on these results that the DRC will decide whether to explore further.

Oil exploration ‘incompatible’ with World Heritage designation

Famous for its mountain gorillas, among the last ones on the planet, Virunga is home to dozens of endangered species, mainly found in and around Lake Edward, the area where Soco has been exploring.

According to the UNESCO convention, the exploration and exploitation of oil is incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. To allow drilling for oil wells legally, the government will have to declassify parts of the park, or Virunga as a whole.

“It would not be a minor modification of the park limits. It would be a major modification that would impair the universal value of the park”, said Leila Maziz, the coordinator for the Congo Basin projects at UNESCO. She added that UNESCO has not received an official request from the Congolese government at this stage.

In its annual report issued last week, Soco stated that it will not be part of the discussions between the UN body and the government. However, prime minister Augustin Matata Ponyo told the BBC that “Soco had brought the issue of the boundary to the government’s attention.”

Under international pressure following a global campaign by WWF and the documentary Virunga, Soco issued a statement that it would not seek to explore further in the park “unless Unesco and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status.”

Following that statement in June 2014, Soco’s deputy chief executive Roger Cagle told the Times that, nevertheless, DRC could apply for a boundary change.

An ‘alarming’ development

In an official letter seen by the Guardian, Matata Ponyo wrote that his government has been considering boundary change since July 2014, following the UNESCO summit.

“It is alarming that the Congolese prime minister says that Soco has raised the issue of Virunga’s boundary with the government and that the government appears to be moving towards declassifying some of the park”, Dyer said.

A spokeswoman for Soco said: “Soco has publicly stated that it has not and will not lobby the DRC government to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park.”

As part of its report, Soco also announced that it has hired the legal firm Clifford Chance to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations brought forward by the documentary ‘Virunga’, as well as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness.

In February, the Church of England threatened to sell its £3m share in Soco, over concerns relating to the company’s behaviour in DRC.

 

 

This article was originally published by the Guardian and is republished here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




391376

DRC Congo wants to develop Virunga’s oil Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Democratic Republic of Congo’s prime minister has said that his government wants to find a way to explore for oil in the Virunga national park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and will engage in negotiations with the UN body to “explore judiciously”.

Virunga, Africa’s oldest and most biodiverse park, has been on the list of ‘World Heritage in danger’ since 1994, as two decades of armed conflict and intense poaching by militias has taken its toll on the park’s ecosystem.

In 2007, the Congolese ministry of hydrocarbons awarded two oil concessions straddling Virunga’s boundaries to the French major Total, as well as Soco International, a British oil company registered on the London Stock Exchange.

While Total quickly agreed to never explore within the current limits of the park – even in the event of a boundaries change – Soco has carried out exploratory activities in Virunga, concluding a seismic study in July 2014.

The company said it will hand over the results of the seismic survey to the Congolese government in coming months. It is based on these results that the DRC will decide whether to explore further.

Oil exploration ‘incompatible’ with World Heritage designation

Famous for its mountain gorillas, among the last ones on the planet, Virunga is home to dozens of endangered species, mainly found in and around Lake Edward, the area where Soco has been exploring.

According to the UNESCO convention, the exploration and exploitation of oil is incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. To allow drilling for oil wells legally, the government will have to declassify parts of the park, or Virunga as a whole.

“It would not be a minor modification of the park limits. It would be a major modification that would impair the universal value of the park”, said Leila Maziz, the coordinator for the Congo Basin projects at UNESCO. She added that UNESCO has not received an official request from the Congolese government at this stage.

In its annual report issued last week, Soco stated that it will not be part of the discussions between the UN body and the government. However, prime minister Augustin Matata Ponyo told the BBC that “Soco had brought the issue of the boundary to the government’s attention.”

Under international pressure following a global campaign by WWF and the documentary Virunga, Soco issued a statement that it would not seek to explore further in the park “unless Unesco and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status.”

Following that statement in June 2014, Soco’s deputy chief executive Roger Cagle told the Times that, nevertheless, DRC could apply for a boundary change.

An ‘alarming’ development

In an official letter seen by the Guardian, Matata Ponyo wrote that his government has been considering boundary change since July 2014, following the UNESCO summit.

“It is alarming that the Congolese prime minister says that Soco has raised the issue of Virunga’s boundary with the government and that the government appears to be moving towards declassifying some of the park”, Dyer said.

A spokeswoman for Soco said: “Soco has publicly stated that it has not and will not lobby the DRC government to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park.”

As part of its report, Soco also announced that it has hired the legal firm Clifford Chance to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations brought forward by the documentary ‘Virunga’, as well as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness.

In February, the Church of England threatened to sell its £3m share in Soco, over concerns relating to the company’s behaviour in DRC.

 

 

This article was originally published by the Guardian and is republished here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




391376

DRC Congo wants to develop Virunga’s oil Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Democratic Republic of Congo’s prime minister has said that his government wants to find a way to explore for oil in the Virunga national park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and will engage in negotiations with the UN body to “explore judiciously”.

Virunga, Africa’s oldest and most biodiverse park, has been on the list of ‘World Heritage in danger’ since 1994, as two decades of armed conflict and intense poaching by militias has taken its toll on the park’s ecosystem.

In 2007, the Congolese ministry of hydrocarbons awarded two oil concessions straddling Virunga’s boundaries to the French major Total, as well as Soco International, a British oil company registered on the London Stock Exchange.

While Total quickly agreed to never explore within the current limits of the park – even in the event of a boundaries change – Soco has carried out exploratory activities in Virunga, concluding a seismic study in July 2014.

The company said it will hand over the results of the seismic survey to the Congolese government in coming months. It is based on these results that the DRC will decide whether to explore further.

Oil exploration ‘incompatible’ with World Heritage designation

Famous for its mountain gorillas, among the last ones on the planet, Virunga is home to dozens of endangered species, mainly found in and around Lake Edward, the area where Soco has been exploring.

According to the UNESCO convention, the exploration and exploitation of oil is incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. To allow drilling for oil wells legally, the government will have to declassify parts of the park, or Virunga as a whole.

“It would not be a minor modification of the park limits. It would be a major modification that would impair the universal value of the park”, said Leila Maziz, the coordinator for the Congo Basin projects at UNESCO. She added that UNESCO has not received an official request from the Congolese government at this stage.

In its annual report issued last week, Soco stated that it will not be part of the discussions between the UN body and the government. However, prime minister Augustin Matata Ponyo told the BBC that “Soco had brought the issue of the boundary to the government’s attention.”

Under international pressure following a global campaign by WWF and the documentary Virunga, Soco issued a statement that it would not seek to explore further in the park “unless Unesco and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status.”

Following that statement in June 2014, Soco’s deputy chief executive Roger Cagle told the Times that, nevertheless, DRC could apply for a boundary change.

An ‘alarming’ development

In an official letter seen by the Guardian, Matata Ponyo wrote that his government has been considering boundary change since July 2014, following the UNESCO summit.

“It is alarming that the Congolese prime minister says that Soco has raised the issue of Virunga’s boundary with the government and that the government appears to be moving towards declassifying some of the park”, Dyer said.

A spokeswoman for Soco said: “Soco has publicly stated that it has not and will not lobby the DRC government to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park.”

As part of its report, Soco also announced that it has hired the legal firm Clifford Chance to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations brought forward by the documentary ‘Virunga’, as well as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness.

In February, the Church of England threatened to sell its £3m share in Soco, over concerns relating to the company’s behaviour in DRC.

 

 

This article was originally published by the Guardian and is republished here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




391376

DRC Congo wants to develop Virunga’s oil Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Democratic Republic of Congo’s prime minister has said that his government wants to find a way to explore for oil in the Virunga national park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and will engage in negotiations with the UN body to “explore judiciously”.

Virunga, Africa’s oldest and most biodiverse park, has been on the list of ‘World Heritage in danger’ since 1994, as two decades of armed conflict and intense poaching by militias has taken its toll on the park’s ecosystem.

In 2007, the Congolese ministry of hydrocarbons awarded two oil concessions straddling Virunga’s boundaries to the French major Total, as well as Soco International, a British oil company registered on the London Stock Exchange.

While Total quickly agreed to never explore within the current limits of the park – even in the event of a boundaries change – Soco has carried out exploratory activities in Virunga, concluding a seismic study in July 2014.

The company said it will hand over the results of the seismic survey to the Congolese government in coming months. It is based on these results that the DRC will decide whether to explore further.

Oil exploration ‘incompatible’ with World Heritage designation

Famous for its mountain gorillas, among the last ones on the planet, Virunga is home to dozens of endangered species, mainly found in and around Lake Edward, the area where Soco has been exploring.

According to the UNESCO convention, the exploration and exploitation of oil is incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. To allow drilling for oil wells legally, the government will have to declassify parts of the park, or Virunga as a whole.

“It would not be a minor modification of the park limits. It would be a major modification that would impair the universal value of the park”, said Leila Maziz, the coordinator for the Congo Basin projects at UNESCO. She added that UNESCO has not received an official request from the Congolese government at this stage.

In its annual report issued last week, Soco stated that it will not be part of the discussions between the UN body and the government. However, prime minister Augustin Matata Ponyo told the BBC that “Soco had brought the issue of the boundary to the government’s attention.”

Under international pressure following a global campaign by WWF and the documentary Virunga, Soco issued a statement that it would not seek to explore further in the park “unless Unesco and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status.”

Following that statement in June 2014, Soco’s deputy chief executive Roger Cagle told the Times that, nevertheless, DRC could apply for a boundary change.

An ‘alarming’ development

In an official letter seen by the Guardian, Matata Ponyo wrote that his government has been considering boundary change since July 2014, following the UNESCO summit.

“It is alarming that the Congolese prime minister says that Soco has raised the issue of Virunga’s boundary with the government and that the government appears to be moving towards declassifying some of the park”, Dyer said.

A spokeswoman for Soco said: “Soco has publicly stated that it has not and will not lobby the DRC government to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park.”

As part of its report, Soco also announced that it has hired the legal firm Clifford Chance to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations brought forward by the documentary ‘Virunga’, as well as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness.

In February, the Church of England threatened to sell its £3m share in Soco, over concerns relating to the company’s behaviour in DRC.

 

 

This article was originally published by the Guardian and is republished here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




391376

DRC Congo wants to develop Virunga’s oil Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Democratic Republic of Congo’s prime minister has said that his government wants to find a way to explore for oil in the Virunga national park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and will engage in negotiations with the UN body to “explore judiciously”.

Virunga, Africa’s oldest and most biodiverse park, has been on the list of ‘World Heritage in danger’ since 1994, as two decades of armed conflict and intense poaching by militias has taken its toll on the park’s ecosystem.

In 2007, the Congolese ministry of hydrocarbons awarded two oil concessions straddling Virunga’s boundaries to the French major Total, as well as Soco International, a British oil company registered on the London Stock Exchange.

While Total quickly agreed to never explore within the current limits of the park – even in the event of a boundaries change – Soco has carried out exploratory activities in Virunga, concluding a seismic study in July 2014.

The company said it will hand over the results of the seismic survey to the Congolese government in coming months. It is based on these results that the DRC will decide whether to explore further.

Oil exploration ‘incompatible’ with World Heritage designation

Famous for its mountain gorillas, among the last ones on the planet, Virunga is home to dozens of endangered species, mainly found in and around Lake Edward, the area where Soco has been exploring.

According to the UNESCO convention, the exploration and exploitation of oil is incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. To allow drilling for oil wells legally, the government will have to declassify parts of the park, or Virunga as a whole.

“It would not be a minor modification of the park limits. It would be a major modification that would impair the universal value of the park”, said Leila Maziz, the coordinator for the Congo Basin projects at UNESCO. She added that UNESCO has not received an official request from the Congolese government at this stage.

In its annual report issued last week, Soco stated that it will not be part of the discussions between the UN body and the government. However, prime minister Augustin Matata Ponyo told the BBC that “Soco had brought the issue of the boundary to the government’s attention.”

Under international pressure following a global campaign by WWF and the documentary Virunga, Soco issued a statement that it would not seek to explore further in the park “unless Unesco and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status.”

Following that statement in June 2014, Soco’s deputy chief executive Roger Cagle told the Times that, nevertheless, DRC could apply for a boundary change.

An ‘alarming’ development

In an official letter seen by the Guardian, Matata Ponyo wrote that his government has been considering boundary change since July 2014, following the UNESCO summit.

“It is alarming that the Congolese prime minister says that Soco has raised the issue of Virunga’s boundary with the government and that the government appears to be moving towards declassifying some of the park”, Dyer said.

A spokeswoman for Soco said: “Soco has publicly stated that it has not and will not lobby the DRC government to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park.”

As part of its report, Soco also announced that it has hired the legal firm Clifford Chance to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations brought forward by the documentary ‘Virunga’, as well as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness.

In February, the Church of England threatened to sell its £3m share in Soco, over concerns relating to the company’s behaviour in DRC.

 

 

This article was originally published by the Guardian and is republished here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




391376

The end is nigh: last rites for Hinkley C Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




I’ve always said that the two proposed new reactors at Hinkley Point would never get built. Now I’m not just saying it: I’m absolutely convinced that they’ll never get built.

A couple of weeks ago, EdF formally confirmed that no decision would be taken on Hinkley Point before the General Election, and probably not before the end of the year.

The reason it gave was that: “We are in the final phase of negotiations, but that phase can take a considerable amount of time, depending on the number of problems left to resolve.”

And that list of problems is daunting. First, it needs to be able to sign final deals with co-investors, including the Chinese, who are beginning to cut up rough. Then it needs final confirmation from the European Commission and the UK Government for a whole load of issues regarding the waste transfer contract.

It also needs to finalise a £10bn loan guarantee from the Treasury. And, despite months of discussions, it needs to conclude negotiations with the UK Government regarding the subsidy contract.

Legal challenges loom large

You’ll notice that this list does not include any delays that may be caused by the Austrian Government challenging the EU’s decision to approve as ‘legal’ (within the EU’s state aid rules) the billions of pounds of subsidy that the UK Government will pump into the project.

EdF doesn’t talk about that, as it still hopes that the Austrians will be ‘persuaded’ by the UK Government to withdraw its challenge. And the UK Government is certainly intent on doing exactly that!

Over the last few months, details have been trickling out about the retaliatory measures UK Ministers are now threatening in a demonstration of state bullying that beggars belief. A leaked memo showed UK ministers asserting that “the UK will take every opportunity to sue or damage Austria in the future.”

Which shows just how desperate the Coalition Government has become, having put all its notionally ‘low carbon’ eggs in the nuclear basket – a decision that has forced ministers to go to extraordinary lengths to get the Hinkley Point project over the line.

UK Government bending over backwards … to no avail

Influential commentator Dr Philip Johnstone, Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit, put it as follows: “Every wish of the nuclear industry has been granted by the UK Government. The British planning system has been ‘streamlined’, with nuclear a key inspiration of the need to speed things up.

“The Government has created one of the best institutional contexts in the world for developing nuclear, with a new Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Office for Nuclear Development, and has ensured that nuclear regulators are equipped to pre-license designs for new build.

“As well as this, a strategic siting assessment and environmental assessment were carried out, further ‘streamlining’ the process of new nuclear construction. Electricity Market Reform has been brought in, where, despite being a mature technology, nuclear was granted Contracts for Difference at double the current market rate for the next 35 years.”

But none of that cuts much ice with the Austrians, and if their challenge proceeds, nobody quite knows how long a delay that might entail. It will certainly be years, not months.

And it just got worse for the Coalition Government. We heard last week that EdF is now going to have to deal with another legal challenge – this one from a German energy Co-operative (a very successful enterprise, founded by Greenpeace 15 years ago) on the grounds that the EU’s decision self-evidently distorts competition.

Greenpeace Energy is also calling on the German Government to join Austria in its formal complaint, but that’s still unlikely.

The nuclear dream crashes into harsh realities

But you know what – regardless of what happens with those legal challenges, it looks like the beginning of the end for Hinkley anyway. And here’s why:

  • The cost of the Hinkley Point project has gone up and up over the last two years, and shows little indication of stabilising where it now is;
  • The calamitous failure of EdF (and its partner Areva) to deliver the first two EPR projects at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France has dragged on and on;
    – The two Chinese co-investors (the China National Nuclear Corporation and China General Nuclear Power) have got more and more leery about the EPR reactor design;
  • The French Government has become more and more outspoken about its reluctance to go on bailing out either EdF or Areva, as their balance sheets go from bad to worse;
  • Areva is now in such a bad state (with a €4.8bn loss in 2014) that it looks as if it might have to withdraw as a co-investor in the Hinkley project – a state of affairs pretty much confirmed by EdF’s CEO last week;
  • Worse yet, Areva has announced that it wants to suspend indefinitely any further work on the approval process for its EPR (the same reactor design as Hinkley) in the USA, which sends a pretty strong signal that the EPR in the USA is as good as dead and buried;
  • To cap it all, the UK Government has itself further muddied the waters by seeking approval from the EU to hold a ‘golden share’ in the Hinkley project. This would give them special voting rights, and could theoretically allow Ministers to block the transfer of ownership of Hinkley if EdF decided that it wanted to get out. (Worried about the Chinese taking total control, perhaps?!) Experts believe this may completely undo the case that the UK Government made to the Commission last year for approval of those huge subsidies.

And in the meantime, it has to be said that the world looks very different from the point of view of renewable energy. The costs of solar and wind continue to fall, year on year, with every indication that there’s a further 40% reduction to come over the next few years.

Hinkley has become toxic

So perhaps it’s not so surprising that the Coalition Government has been a lot quieter on its Hinkley hopes and dreams than it was last year. Not a peep, for instance, from the disgracefully compromised Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Davey. And not a peep from George Osborne, who must be looking at the finances of Hinkley Point with increasing hostility.

Interestingly, nor have we heard anything like as much from today’s pro-nuclear greenies as we did before – including George Monbiot, Stephen Tindale, Mark Lynas and even Jim Lovelock.

From what I’ve heard (by way of reliable gossip, it has to be said, rather than hard-and-fast evidence!), they’ve all realised that their ability to enthuse people with their pro-nuclear illusions is being severely (if not entirely) undermined by the Hinkley Point fiasco.

The combination of EdF and Areva (both realistically bankrupt, were it not for funding from the French Government), Chinese investors (demanding copper-bottomed guarantees that they will be bailed out when Hinkley Point turns into another Olkiluoto or Flamanville), a reactor design (the EPR) that even the keenest of nuclear engineers have started to describe as “unbuildable”, and the threat of further, even more costly delays (there’s now no chance at all that any reactor at Hinkley Point will be generating any electricity before 2025), is quite simply toxic.

My best bet is that these pro-nuclear greenies now desperately need Hinkley Point to fail, so that their reputations will be sort-of salvaged – even as they start hyping the next instalment of their nuclear nonsense.

We got a very strong sense of that through the speech of another pro-nuclear, former greenie, Baroness Worthington, Shadow Spokesperson for Energy and Climate Change in the House of Lords. In her words, the Hinkley Point deal has caused “a crisis of confidence” in the future of energy policy in the UK:

“policies which Conservatives brought in have resulted in a massive destabilisation of the energy market. Intervention in the market has dented confidence for a contract which has yet to be signed. We have become over-obsessed with the delivery of one project.”

And this from one of the keenest advocates of nuclear power in the Labour Party! No doubt her voice has been influential in the current Labour Party position on Hinkley, which is to argue that it needs a completely new financial appraisal, effectively giving the Labour Party a ‘get-out-of-Hinkley Point’ post-Election option.

When in a hole, stop digging. Tom Greatrex, take note!

Which is by no means the same thing, sadly, as Labour developing a ‘get-out-of-nuclear-altogether’ option. The Labour Party’s deeply unimpressive Energy Spokesman, Tom Greatrex, recently told voters in Scotland that a future Labour Government would force Scotland to be part of a new UK-wide nuclear programme – regardless of the SNP’s very clear anti-nuclear stance. (Go for it, Tom: what better way of winning back Labour voters in Scotland!)

All this chaos and confusion must surely mean that, post Election, we might at last be able to get back to a serious debate about energy policy here in the UK, without Hinkley Point distorting every single aspect of today’s Electricity Market Reform, shadowing out every single policy alternative, and holding back the mindset and behavioural revolutions amongst both business and the general public on which our energy future really depends.

We’ve already paid a very significant price for Labour’s sad surrender to the seductive lies of the nuclear industry, and for this Coalition Government’s near-incomprehensible decision to pursue the EPR reactor design for Hinkley Point. Between them, they’ve dug a hole already so deep that they have no idea what to do other than to keep on digging.

So let’s just hope that those Austrians stick to their guns with their legal challenge, for this is by far the longest and by far the most robust rope-ladder up which those benighted politicians – and ever-more benighted pro-nuclear greenies – will soon – ever so thankfully – be able to climb.

 

 

Jonathon Porritt is Founder Director of Forum for the Future www.forumforthefuture.org. His latest book, ‘The World We Made‘ is available from www.phaidon.com/store.

This article was originally published on Jonathon Porritt’s blog.

 

 




391149

Cambodia expels forest defender Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




“I am arrested and ready to be deported now – Alex.” The text message came from Mother Nature Cambodia founder Alex Gonzalez-Davidson.

An hour later his last message on Cambodian soil encapsulated the mission for which he has become known: “Message to youth and Cambodian nature lovers, stay strong, the battle is yours to be won. For Nature. Our Life.”

As his flight took off at 9.30pm protests by his supporters continued outside the airport under a frenzied media glare. He texted again: “The reason they are trying to deport me is that they regard me as a fish bone in their throat, due to the activism in the Areng valley.”

The Areng valley in the Cardamom Mountain forests is at the heart of one of Cambodia’s last great forests, home to 30 endangered species and a 2,000-strong Chong indigenous community. Over the last 20 years 84% of the country’s primary forest has been lost to logging, plantations and other developments.

But a massive 10,000 hectares of the valley are slated to be flooded by a hydro-electric dam – one that makes no commercial sense, and appears to be a triumph of corruption over wise governance, as it opens up timber and minerals for exploitation, and parcels out lucrative construction contracts.

Police officers had detained Alex and San Mala, a Khmer Mother Nature activist, at a cafe in central Phnom Penh around 1pm. His arrest came days after his visa had expired on 20 February. The Ministry of the Interior had asked him to leave voluntarily and re-apply, but sensing that it would not be renewed, Alex decided to overstay his visa.

Deportation of foreign NGO activists is highly unusual in Cambodia. The last similar case was in 2005 International NGO Global Witness provoked the government with a critical report and staff were denied visas.

If words could kill …

For over a week the issue dominated the headlines, dragging senior political figures into the discussion. The opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party sided with Alex demanding of the Government and even the King that he stay, but it was not to be. Nalry Pilorge, director of prominent rights group LICADHO said:

“The government’s decision to deny Mr Gonzalez-Davidson a visa renewal is a perfect example of the government’s sustained attempt to quash grassroots advocacy, silence dissent and ensure an environment where the government can operate with immunity from independent criticism.”

Prime Minister Hun Sen responded in aggressive tone following the deportation. “If you want to make an autonomous zone” in the Areng Valley, he threatened, “please come, and we will put BM21 [multiple rocket launcher vehicles] in that area.”

However under pressure his threatening remarks were followed by what appeared to be a significant climb down delaying the project: “Stop talking about Areng. Let’s study it thoroughly. And I have come up with an idea that no matter whether the study is clear or not, there will be no construction from now on until 2018.”

Within the week 180 activists had travelled to the Areng Valley in solidarity with the local people and in defiance of Alex’s deportation.

The Government was also at work in the area sending a heavily armed parliamentary delegation to intimidate the residents. A Mother Nature observer had his camera phone snatched by guards for attempting to record the meeting.

Mr Vaen Vorn, a prominent local activist from the Areng valley, was also summoned to court charged with supplying timber without a permit to Mother Nature for an eco-centre. The charge was viewed by observers as another attempt to silence opposition to the project.

Protest camp in Cambodia’s last great jungle hits a raw nerve

How did Alex, who had been living and working in Cambodia for 12 years, reach such notoriety?

In March 2014 Alex and a band of Khmer followers set up a protest camp in the middle of the thickest jungle in Cambodia. Their mission – to block Chinese dam builders from entering the remote Areng Valley – one of the last refuges for endangered wildlife and settled by Indigenous Chong People.

Despite a regime ban on protest, the camp became a clarion call to a growing youth movement. Students made the journey from the capital Phnom Penh to support a motley mixture of monks, indigenous locals, and ex-loggers who had joined Alex at the jungle camp.

I visited in the rainy season to find this committed bunch sleeping in hammocks as the incessant rains flooded tents turning the place into a quagmire.

Five times Chinese surveyors and dam builders were surrounded in their vehicles and sent packing. Then last September the police arrived with military support, broke up the camp and arrested Alex and eleven others when they again blocked the road. They were released only after agreeing to sign onerous commitments to cease their activities.

Though not naming Alex explicitly the threat of deportation came soon after. An article in the Phnom Penh Post of 12th December 2014 quoted Government minister Chheang Vun, who threatened the leader of Alex’s group Mother Nature with deportation:

“If I find that he did anything against what he pledged to the Ministry of Interior, I will request that the Immigration Department at the ministry arrest him and send him back to his home country.”

After years beneath the radar, Alex steps into the open

Of mixed Anglo-Spanish parentage, Alex speaks English with a Geordie accent alluding to earlier years living with his Mother near Newcastle. Originally from Catalonia, he made Cambodia his home and worked with the International Red Cross and a number of private companies as a translator.

Alex’s fluent mastery of the Khmer language enabled him to engage intimately with Khmer communities struggling against ongoing exploitation under the regime of Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has brutally suppressed all opposition in the country during his 30-year rule.

Mother Nature activist Somnang Sim said of him: “Alex is a foreigner but he can speak Khmer, so many people respect him.”

I got to know Gonzalez-Davidson in 2012 while making a documentary ‘Defenders of the Spirit Forest’. In the early days, though usually busy organising activities, he was careful not to stand in front of the camera, preferring to take a low-profile approach, mindful of the consequences of being seen to be speaking out against the regime he calls a “criminal cartel”.

That all changed as he became increasingly immersed in a campaign to save The Areng Valley, growing increasingly frustrated with the ineffective approach of conservation NGOs in the Areng Valley such as Flora and Fauna International and Conservation International.

Working in formal partnerships with the regime, they have said little in public against destructive projects like the dam, for fear of losing their permission to operate in the country.

Social media successes rankle corrupt politicians

Styling his own brand of activism based on non-violent direct action and creative use of social-media, Alex founded the group Mother Nature in October 2013.

His short quirky videos which poke fun at the “monkeys in power” have become a hit with Khmers – each one quickly going viral on Facebook. In a country where television is tightly controlled by the state, it is the internet where much social debate happens.

He especially appeals to a youth population yearning for the political freedoms they read about on their smart phones daily. By fronting up to the regime Alex has become a symbol of their hopes and aspirations. Now he has a following of activists increasingly prepared to challenge decisions made by corrupt politicians, and stand up to laws enforced by crooked judges.

Hun Sen narrowly retained power in the July 2013 elections but opposition claims that the results were rigged were accompanied by protests. Hun Sen responded in characteristic fashion with bloody crackdowns, and people were killed. This was followed up with a ban on all protest in January 2014.

Throughout this period Alex and his allies continued to mount protests in the capital, most of which were swamped with police from the start. One featuring students wearing animal costumes on bicycles attracted more police than protesters and didn’t even manage to begin cycling. Still the symbolism that it presented set social-media alight.

Cambodia’s conservatoin jewel in peril

A report by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency for the Cambodian government concludes that the £200 million price tag will result in a high cost of electricity per unit compared with other dams, for the modest 108 megawatt output it would provide.

But while the Government maintains that feasibility studies have yet to be done, Mother Nature has gathered substantial evidence indicating that the dam has been approved behind closed doors and therefore views these feasibility studies as just an excuse to commence construction.

“We have been really effective at exposing this white elephant project”, said Alex. “It is just an excuse for further corruption from logging and mining.”

The proposed hydroelectric-dam project is led by Chinese dam building giant Sinohydro with help from its powerful local partner Pheapimex, led by ruling party Senator Lao Meng King. Pheapimex is infamous for its high profile land-conflicts.

In a public letter, Prime Minister Hun Sen said the dam has not been approved and a decision is pending based on the results of an Environmental Impact Assessment yet to be conducted.

Alex disputes the letter’s claims that the dam will provide positive benefits such as creating energy, jobs and the development of ecotourism: “The letter in itself is so biased towards construction that it is further indication of our belief that the dam has been approved.”

A further indication that the project has approval is that Sinohydro Resources recently registered a wholly owned Cambodian subsidiary specifically for this hydro project: Cambodia Cheay Areng electricity company Ltd.

Now blacklisted from entering Cambodia, Alex said prior to his explusion: “I am really proud of what we have achieved so far, and I truly believe that the movement we have created, will only serve to accelerate the unstoppable growth of the movement in future.”

 

 

Rod Harbinson is an environmental journalist, filmmaker and campaigner.

Watch ‘Defenders of the Spirit Forest’, a 25 minute documentary on the Cardamom Mountain forests by Rod Harbinson at: www.spiritforest.org

Sign the petition by Rainforest Rescue to Save the Areng Valley.

Support the campaign to save the Areng valley with Cambodian Campaign group Mother Nature.

 

 




391053

After UK’s record solar year, government tries to kill the sector Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Marks & Spencer (M&S) has just completed the UK’s largest single roof mounted solar panel array on its East Midlands automated distribution centre in Castle Donington.

The 6.1MWp solar array comprises 24,272 PV panels, each rated at 250W, installed on the company’s 900,000 sq.ft (84,000 sq.m) roof.

It’s yet another contribution to the record growth of the UK’s solar sector, which now boasts over 650,000 solar installations across homes, offices, schools, churches, warehouses, farms, police stations, train stations and even a bridge.

Official statistics show that total capacity reached almost 5GW at the end of 2014, up from 2.8GW at the end of 2013. At peak production, that’s enough to power 1.5 million homes, and approaching 10% of the UK’s peak power demand.

But now the government is determined to kill UK solar

Despite the manifest success of the UK’s solar industry, the government last week anounced that only five large (over 5MW) new solar installations will be supported under its new  ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CFD) system.

The CFD ‘auction’, held earlier this year, required ‘established renewables’ – a category that includes onshore wind, landfill gas, hydro and solar – to compete with each other for a share of £50m for the next year, rising to 65m allocated for future years.

Relative to support for other technologies the sum is minute. The government is spending £3.1bn for under its established Renewables Obligation (RO) support mechanism for 2014/15. And while the RO remains open until 2017 to other technologies, it specifically excludes large-scale solar.

The Solar Trade Association predicts a catastrophic decline in the sector as a consequence. It estimates that 2-3GW (2,000-3,000MW) of large-scale solar will be completed in the current financial year.

But it predicts that next financial year new installations will collapse to just 32MW for all solar PV large and small – around 1% of current levels.

‘Blatant discrimination’

Some now accuse the government of “blatant discrimination” against solar power, owing to its unique exclusion from the RO, combined with the paltry sum available under the CFD package. In addition Britain’s Green Investment Bank has so far excluded solar power from loans of £1.6 billion for renewables.

The five solar projects selected from the CFD auction came in at the lowest prices of all the 27 winners, at £50 and £79.23 per MWh. Most of the others were onshore wind projects bidding at £82.50. This provides a strong indication that solar is already the UK’s lowest cost form of renewable energy.

Making government policy especially paradoxical, say critics, is the fact that solar PV is expected to be competitive with fossil fuel power as soon as 2020, according to the recent report ‘In Sight: Unsubsidised UK Solar‘. The report recommends:

“Solar PV will be a critical technology in the 21st century, and the British government should continue to support the industry until it is fully economic without subsidies; we believe that this will be reached within the next decade across all solar markets in Britain.

“Support must be reduced progressively and predictably towards elimination over the next decade, to help build a more mature, lowcost supply chain, while maintaining value for money and preventing developers from inflating prices. Getting the right support level is critical to driving sustained cost reductions.”

Even Amber Rudd, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, had nice things to say at M&S’s solar launch yesterday: “More rooftop solar means more jobs – and will also help deliver the clean, reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

But in fact, the government is putting the boot in. Why? A clue may exist elsewhere in the report: “Increasing cost-competitiveness and capacity growth of solar PV in Britain will impact the British power system, including falls in wholesale power prices, as already seen in Germany.

“The growth of solar power may threaten electric utilities which fail to transition away from solely supplying electricity, to providing residential energy services.”

Could the UK government’s apparently senseless policy on solar power be written by the energy companies in direct opposition to the consumer interest in lower electricity prices? So it would appear.

But M&S sticks to its solar guns

M&S’s record-breaking PV array will help the company maintain its commitment of sourcing 100% of its electricity for UK and Ireland buildings from renewable sources, with 50% sourced from small scale renewable sources by 2020.

The energy it generates each year – estimated at 5,000 MWh – will provide nearly 25% of the energy required for the distribution centre, and lower M&S’s carbon footprint by 48,000 tonnes over 20 years.

As such M&S’s solar commitment is driven by its low carbon policy commitment rather than subsidies. Since the launch of its ‘Plan A’ in 2007, M&S has lowered its carbon emissions by 37% and is carbon neutral across its worldwide operations.

And Hugo Adams, Director of Property at M&S, confirmed that there was more in the pipeline. The completion of this project, he said, was “the first significant step in a number of solar energy initiatives we are planning this year. The scale of the project demonstrates our ambitious goals and long term commitment to onsite renewable energy.”

And it may just be that as prices fall, other companies, landlords, schools, local authorities and home-owners will just carry on installing solar anyway, driving down their power bills and carbon footprint – and foiling the attempt by the UK government, in cahoots with the Big Six power companies, to kill the sector off.

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390945