Tag Archives: government

Fracking, the oil price crash, and the ‘greenest government ever’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This month, a powerful article in Nature highlighted yet again that most of the world’s oil, coal and gas needs to stay in the ground, if we want to prevent dangerous climate change.

This is the ‘unburnable carbon’ analysis that President Obama and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both made mainstream in recent months.

Related, over the last 6 months the world oil price has crashed, catching almost all economists and analysts by surprise. As well as profound economic effects, this crash affects ‘unburnable carbon’ in two broad and opposite ways.

It’s leading to cancellations of potential fossil fuel projects, as they become less or non-profitable. Great for stopping colossally dirty projects like Arctic oil and Canadian tar sands. And in the opposite direction, it makes oil cheaper, meaning people use it more. Bad for climate, though good for people’s pockets.

How should Governments react to this? A Government who genuinely thought climate change was a global priority would not sit passively by and let these conflicting effects of the oil price crash on climate sweep over us. It would act. Government surveys show the British public want more action on climate change.

Instead, we’re going all out for oil and fracking

Despite this, the sole response to the oil price crash from the UK Government is do the opposite! It announced detailed plans for tax cuts for oil companies to drill another 11-21 billion barrels of oil from the ground – way more than even the three billion barrels in the Government’s Wood Review on offshore oil and gas. Climate change impacts got one sentence of dismissal.

Then last week, it drove through a clause in the Infrastructure Bill – with almost no debate – requiring the UK to “maximise economic recovery” of North Sea oil.

These are crystal-clear examples of how Governments do not yet grasp that climate change requires a comprehensive plan. We can’t just do a little bit on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and think that this means we don’t need to do anything about fossil fuels.

And yet, for every announcement of a new wind-farm, or homes insulated, or rail investment, there is a corresponding – and often larger – Government announcement which makes climate change worse.

For example: £15 billion for new roads; whopping cuts in taxes on profits for North Sea oil drillers; consultations on which new airport to open; tax breaks for new fracking industries. High-carbon infrastructure has recently over-taken low-carbon infrastructure in the Government’s ‘infrastructure pipeline’.

After decades of subsidy, high-carbon industry shouldn’t need any more help. Colossally rich oil corporations know the global oil price yo-yos – they should have saved for this moment in the years when oil prices were over $100 a barrel and their profits were sky-high. But like the banks, they want their bail-out, and they know they will get it.

It’s shameful – that we have leaders who say climate change is desperately urgent, who call for more ambition, and yet who are still so deep in the pockets of fossil fuel companies they will not act and treat climate change as the emergency it is.

They are up-front about it too – the Government’s North Sea oil tax cut consultation is clear on three things – it’s derived in discussion with the oil barons; it’s being fast-tracked at their request; and the consultation primarily wants to hear from them.

Leaked letter shows the real agenda

They’re also not so up-front about it – you can see just how deeply the fracking industry is embedded in Government in this leaked-letter from George Osborne here.

The letter was from George Osborne, sent last September, to colleagues in the Cabinet’s Economic Affairs Committee, setting out how he wanted them to prioritise implementing the recommendations of a Cabinet Office report on how to get the shale gas industry going.

Of real interest here are the agreed plans between Government and fracking company Cuadrilla if their planning permission for fracking is turned down – which is exactly what Lancashire’s planners have recommended councillors to do.

According to the letter It is agreed that “if permission turned down … Cuadrilla to respond to concerns and appeal asap.” When that has happened, the Government will “Prepare PINS to respond promptly to appeal or SoS recovery if appropriate.”

In layperson’s terms, that means the Government will make sure the Planning Inspectorate fast-tracks the appeal or that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles intervenes. This stands in stark contrast to the line taken by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman that such decisions “should be up to local authorities“.

And how were these ‘asks’ made? Has Cuadrilla been meeting Ministers and officials, or has it been a few quiet words in the right ears? For let’s not forget that Cuadrilla’s chairman Lord Browne works in the Cabinet Office as a Non-Executive Director.

Moving to ‘full exploration’

The letter is also very revealing about longer-term plans for “moving to full exploration”. The Government clearly knows it’s losing the argument at the local level. Two recommendations stand out here:

  • “A cross-Government and industry group should be established … to assess the value and viability of focusing on a small number of sites in less contentious locations.”
  • “Public sector land (particularly MoD owned) should be mapped to potential sites and explored for possible concept testing.”

And the Government seems to accept that the bribes – sorry, benefits – it is offering top local communities to accept fracking aren’t working. The solution: it looks like offer them more. They plan to: “examine the nature of benefits to be offered to local communities where shale developments take place.”

They know they’re not winning the wider battle for hearts and minds either, so the Government is going to carry on doing the industry’s PR job and “build on existing network of neutral academic experts available to provide credible evidence-based views of matters of public concern”, and “develop a national communications plan on shale exploration.”

This isn’t the first evidence of collusion. Lord Browne has already intervened with the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, to try to exempt Cuadrilla from compliance with drilling waste regulations.

On another occasion, after a separate personal intervention by Lord Browne, Lord Smith “offered to halve the consultation time for a waste permit”, and “agreed to intervene with a county council over Cuadrilla’s planning permission and to identify further risks to Cuadrilla’s plans.”

Here’s how the government should be acting!

Instead of colluding with the fossil fuel industry to increase production, a Government genuinely committed to action on climate change would treat the oil price crash as an opportunity to protect the climate, help consumers and protect jobs. It would say:

  • We need a ‘just transition’ plan to get jobs and growth and industry out of North Sea Oil, and into North Sea Renewables like off-shore wind. There will be no economic devastation as when the coal mines closed. But we need to move away from oil, not prop it up. We will do all we can to help people and businesses build new, clean industries in the North Sea.
  • We will put in place a plan to keep demand for oil low, to help keep prices low, and ensure undrilled oil stays in the ground. We’ll put in place a proper strategy to make public transport, walking and cycling decent alternatives to motoring. We’ll drive far stronger standards on car and lorry energy efficiency. We’ll invest in a national electric vehicle network. We’ll act at EU and International level to persuade our fellow nations to do the same.
  • We will make sure the oil and gas price falls don’t damage the growing renewables industry. We’ll reassure investors by setting a clear 2030 power decarbonisation target, with policies to ensure we meet it.
  • We will reverse our fossil-fuel strategy to “maximise recovery” and focus instead on ‘minimising demand’ – in every part of the economy.
  • We will treat climate change as an emergency, and make tackling it a priority across all departments of Government.

People want more action from Government on climate change. Not less. Not a botched half-plan, and half-truths about their commitment to action.

The inadequate, partial, feeble responses on climate change are yet another expression of why so many people feel alienated from Westminster governments – they do not act on their promises, or sufficiently in the public interest.

It’s election time soon. Which parties will put people’s interests ahead of propping up fossil fuel companies, and put in place a proper plan to tackle climate change?

In short, who will step up and show they are a party worth voting for?

 

 

More information on the impact of the oil price crash on climate change: Friends of the Earth briefing.

Simon Bullock is Senior Campaigner, Policy and Research Co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth UK.

Tony Bosworth is Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth UK.

This article is a synthesis of two articles published on the Friends of the Earth Policy & Politics blog:

 

 




389768

Fracking, the oil price crash, and the ‘greenest government ever’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This month, a powerful article in Nature highlighted yet again that most of the world’s oil, coal and gas needs to stay in the ground, if we want to prevent dangerous climate change.

This is the ‘unburnable carbon’ analysis that President Obama and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both made mainstream in recent months.

Related, over the last 6 months the world oil price has crashed, catching almost all economists and analysts by surprise. As well as profound economic effects, this crash affects ‘unburnable carbon’ in two broad and opposite ways.

It’s leading to cancellations of potential fossil fuel projects, as they become less or non-profitable. Great for stopping colossally dirty projects like Arctic oil and Canadian tar sands. And in the opposite direction, it makes oil cheaper, meaning people use it more. Bad for climate, though good for people’s pockets.

How should Governments react to this? A Government who genuinely thought climate change was a global priority would not sit passively by and let these conflicting effects of the oil price crash on climate sweep over us. It would act. Government surveys show the British public want more action on climate change.

Instead, we’re going all out for oil and fracking

Despite this, the sole response to the oil price crash from the UK Government is do the opposite! It announced detailed plans for tax cuts for oil companies to drill another 11-21 billion barrels of oil from the ground – way more than even the three billion barrels in the Government’s Wood Review on offshore oil and gas. Climate change impacts got one sentence of dismissal.

Then last week, it drove through a clause in the Infrastructure Bill – with almost no debate – requiring the UK to “maximise economic recovery” of North Sea oil.

These are crystal-clear examples of how Governments do not yet grasp that climate change requires a comprehensive plan. We can’t just do a little bit on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and think that this means we don’t need to do anything about fossil fuels.

And yet, for every announcement of a new wind-farm, or homes insulated, or rail investment, there is a corresponding – and often larger – Government announcement which makes climate change worse.

For example: £15 billion for new roads; whopping cuts in taxes on profits for North Sea oil drillers; consultations on which new airport to open; tax breaks for new fracking industries. High-carbon infrastructure has recently over-taken low-carbon infrastructure in the Government’s ‘infrastructure pipeline’.

After decades of subsidy, high-carbon industry shouldn’t need any more help. Colossally rich oil corporations know the global oil price yo-yos – they should have saved for this moment in the years when oil prices were over $100 a barrel and their profits were sky-high. But like the banks, they want their bail-out, and they know they will get it.

It’s shameful – that we have leaders who say climate change is desperately urgent, who call for more ambition, and yet who are still so deep in the pockets of fossil fuel companies they will not act and treat climate change as the emergency it is.

They are up-front about it too – the Government’s North Sea oil tax cut consultation is clear on three things – it’s derived in discussion with the oil barons; it’s being fast-tracked at their request; and the consultation primarily wants to hear from them.

Leaked letter shows the real agenda

They’re also not so up-front about it – you can see just how deeply the fracking industry is embedded in Government in this leaked-letter from George Osborne here.

The letter was from George Osborne, sent last September, to colleagues in the Cabinet’s Economic Affairs Committee, setting out how he wanted them to prioritise implementing the recommendations of a Cabinet Office report on how to get the shale gas industry going.

Of real interest here are the agreed plans between Government and fracking company Cuadrilla if their planning permission for fracking is turned down – which is exactly what Lancashire’s planners have recommended councillors to do.

According to the letter It is agreed that “if permission turned down … Cuadrilla to respond to concerns and appeal asap.” When that has happened, the Government will “Prepare PINS to respond promptly to appeal or SoS recovery if appropriate.”

In layperson’s terms, that means the Government will make sure the Planning Inspectorate fast-tracks the appeal or that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles intervenes. This stands in stark contrast to the line taken by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman that such decisions “should be up to local authorities“.

And how were these ‘asks’ made? Has Cuadrilla been meeting Ministers and officials, or has it been a few quiet words in the right ears? For let’s not forget that Cuadrilla’s chairman Lord Browne works in the Cabinet Office as a Non-Executive Director.

Moving to ‘full exploration’

The letter is also very revealing about longer-term plans for “moving to full exploration”. The Government clearly knows it’s losing the argument at the local level. Two recommendations stand out here:

  • “A cross-Government and industry group should be established … to assess the value and viability of focusing on a small number of sites in less contentious locations.”
  • “Public sector land (particularly MoD owned) should be mapped to potential sites and explored for possible concept testing.”

And the Government seems to accept that the bribes – sorry, benefits – it is offering top local communities to accept fracking aren’t working. The solution: it looks like offer them more. They plan to: “examine the nature of benefits to be offered to local communities where shale developments take place.”

They know they’re not winning the wider battle for hearts and minds either, so the Government is going to carry on doing the industry’s PR job and “build on existing network of neutral academic experts available to provide credible evidence-based views of matters of public concern”, and “develop a national communications plan on shale exploration.”

This isn’t the first evidence of collusion. Lord Browne has already intervened with the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, to try to exempt Cuadrilla from compliance with drilling waste regulations.

On another occasion, after a separate personal intervention by Lord Browne, Lord Smith “offered to halve the consultation time for a waste permit”, and “agreed to intervene with a county council over Cuadrilla’s planning permission and to identify further risks to Cuadrilla’s plans.”

Here’s how the government should be acting!

Instead of colluding with the fossil fuel industry to increase production, a Government genuinely committed to action on climate change would treat the oil price crash as an opportunity to protect the climate, help consumers and protect jobs. It would say:

  • We need a ‘just transition’ plan to get jobs and growth and industry out of North Sea Oil, and into North Sea Renewables like off-shore wind. There will be no economic devastation as when the coal mines closed. But we need to move away from oil, not prop it up. We will do all we can to help people and businesses build new, clean industries in the North Sea.
  • We will put in place a plan to keep demand for oil low, to help keep prices low, and ensure undrilled oil stays in the ground. We’ll put in place a proper strategy to make public transport, walking and cycling decent alternatives to motoring. We’ll drive far stronger standards on car and lorry energy efficiency. We’ll invest in a national electric vehicle network. We’ll act at EU and International level to persuade our fellow nations to do the same.
  • We will make sure the oil and gas price falls don’t damage the growing renewables industry. We’ll reassure investors by setting a clear 2030 power decarbonisation target, with policies to ensure we meet it.
  • We will reverse our fossil-fuel strategy to “maximise recovery” and focus instead on ‘minimising demand’ – in every part of the economy.
  • We will treat climate change as an emergency, and make tackling it a priority across all departments of Government.

People want more action from Government on climate change. Not less. Not a botched half-plan, and half-truths about their commitment to action.

The inadequate, partial, feeble responses on climate change are yet another expression of why so many people feel alienated from Westminster governments – they do not act on their promises, or sufficiently in the public interest.

It’s election time soon. Which parties will put people’s interests ahead of propping up fossil fuel companies, and put in place a proper plan to tackle climate change?

In short, who will step up and show they are a party worth voting for?

 

 

More information on the impact of the oil price crash on climate change: Friends of the Earth briefing.

Simon Bullock is Senior Campaigner, Policy and Research Co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth UK.

Tony Bosworth is Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth UK.

This article is a synthesis of two articles published on the Friends of the Earth Policy & Politics blog:

 

 




389768

Fracking, the oil price crash, and the ‘greenest government ever’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This month, a powerful article in Nature highlighted yet again that most of the world’s oil, coal and gas needs to stay in the ground, if we want to prevent dangerous climate change.

This is the ‘unburnable carbon’ analysis that President Obama and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both made mainstream in recent months.

Related, over the last 6 months the world oil price has crashed, catching almost all economists and analysts by surprise. As well as profound economic effects, this crash affects ‘unburnable carbon’ in two broad and opposite ways.

It’s leading to cancellations of potential fossil fuel projects, as they become less or non-profitable. Great for stopping colossally dirty projects like Arctic oil and Canadian tar sands. And in the opposite direction, it makes oil cheaper, meaning people use it more. Bad for climate, though good for people’s pockets.

How should Governments react to this? A Government who genuinely thought climate change was a global priority would not sit passively by and let these conflicting effects of the oil price crash on climate sweep over us. It would act. Government surveys show the British public want more action on climate change.

Instead, we’re going all out for oil and fracking

Despite this, the sole response to the oil price crash from the UK Government is do the opposite! It announced detailed plans for tax cuts for oil companies to drill another 11-21 billion barrels of oil from the ground – way more than even the three billion barrels in the Government’s Wood Review on offshore oil and gas. Climate change impacts got one sentence of dismissal.

Then last week, it drove through a clause in the Infrastructure Bill – with almost no debate – requiring the UK to “maximise economic recovery” of North Sea oil.

These are crystal-clear examples of how Governments do not yet grasp that climate change requires a comprehensive plan. We can’t just do a little bit on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and think that this means we don’t need to do anything about fossil fuels.

And yet, for every announcement of a new wind-farm, or homes insulated, or rail investment, there is a corresponding – and often larger – Government announcement which makes climate change worse.

For example: £15 billion for new roads; whopping cuts in taxes on profits for North Sea oil drillers; consultations on which new airport to open; tax breaks for new fracking industries. High-carbon infrastructure has recently over-taken low-carbon infrastructure in the Government’s ‘infrastructure pipeline’.

After decades of subsidy, high-carbon industry shouldn’t need any more help. Colossally rich oil corporations know the global oil price yo-yos – they should have saved for this moment in the years when oil prices were over $100 a barrel and their profits were sky-high. But like the banks, they want their bail-out, and they know they will get it.

It’s shameful – that we have leaders who say climate change is desperately urgent, who call for more ambition, and yet who are still so deep in the pockets of fossil fuel companies they will not act and treat climate change as the emergency it is.

They are up-front about it too – the Government’s North Sea oil tax cut consultation is clear on three things – it’s derived in discussion with the oil barons; it’s being fast-tracked at their request; and the consultation primarily wants to hear from them.

Leaked letter shows the real agenda

They’re also not so up-front about it – you can see just how deeply the fracking industry is embedded in Government in this leaked-letter from George Osborne here.

The letter was from George Osborne, sent last September, to colleagues in the Cabinet’s Economic Affairs Committee, setting out how he wanted them to prioritise implementing the recommendations of a Cabinet Office report on how to get the shale gas industry going.

Of real interest here are the agreed plans between Government and fracking company Cuadrilla if their planning permission for fracking is turned down – which is exactly what Lancashire’s planners have recommended councillors to do.

According to the letter It is agreed that “if permission turned down … Cuadrilla to respond to concerns and appeal asap.” When that has happened, the Government will “Prepare PINS to respond promptly to appeal or SoS recovery if appropriate.”

In layperson’s terms, that means the Government will make sure the Planning Inspectorate fast-tracks the appeal or that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles intervenes. This stands in stark contrast to the line taken by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman that such decisions “should be up to local authorities“.

And how were these ‘asks’ made? Has Cuadrilla been meeting Ministers and officials, or has it been a few quiet words in the right ears? For let’s not forget that Cuadrilla’s chairman Lord Browne works in the Cabinet Office as a Non-Executive Director.

Moving to ‘full exploration’

The letter is also very revealing about longer-term plans for “moving to full exploration”. The Government clearly knows it’s losing the argument at the local level. Two recommendations stand out here:

  • “A cross-Government and industry group should be established … to assess the value and viability of focusing on a small number of sites in less contentious locations.”
  • “Public sector land (particularly MoD owned) should be mapped to potential sites and explored for possible concept testing.”

And the Government seems to accept that the bribes – sorry, benefits – it is offering top local communities to accept fracking aren’t working. The solution: it looks like offer them more. They plan to: “examine the nature of benefits to be offered to local communities where shale developments take place.”

They know they’re not winning the wider battle for hearts and minds either, so the Government is going to carry on doing the industry’s PR job and “build on existing network of neutral academic experts available to provide credible evidence-based views of matters of public concern”, and “develop a national communications plan on shale exploration.”

This isn’t the first evidence of collusion. Lord Browne has already intervened with the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, to try to exempt Cuadrilla from compliance with drilling waste regulations.

On another occasion, after a separate personal intervention by Lord Browne, Lord Smith “offered to halve the consultation time for a waste permit”, and “agreed to intervene with a county council over Cuadrilla’s planning permission and to identify further risks to Cuadrilla’s plans.”

Here’s how the government should be acting!

Instead of colluding with the fossil fuel industry to increase production, a Government genuinely committed to action on climate change would treat the oil price crash as an opportunity to protect the climate, help consumers and protect jobs. It would say:

  • We need a ‘just transition’ plan to get jobs and growth and industry out of North Sea Oil, and into North Sea Renewables like off-shore wind. There will be no economic devastation as when the coal mines closed. But we need to move away from oil, not prop it up. We will do all we can to help people and businesses build new, clean industries in the North Sea.
  • We will put in place a plan to keep demand for oil low, to help keep prices low, and ensure undrilled oil stays in the ground. We’ll put in place a proper strategy to make public transport, walking and cycling decent alternatives to motoring. We’ll drive far stronger standards on car and lorry energy efficiency. We’ll invest in a national electric vehicle network. We’ll act at EU and International level to persuade our fellow nations to do the same.
  • We will make sure the oil and gas price falls don’t damage the growing renewables industry. We’ll reassure investors by setting a clear 2030 power decarbonisation target, with policies to ensure we meet it.
  • We will reverse our fossil-fuel strategy to “maximise recovery” and focus instead on ‘minimising demand’ – in every part of the economy.
  • We will treat climate change as an emergency, and make tackling it a priority across all departments of Government.

People want more action from Government on climate change. Not less. Not a botched half-plan, and half-truths about their commitment to action.

The inadequate, partial, feeble responses on climate change are yet another expression of why so many people feel alienated from Westminster governments – they do not act on their promises, or sufficiently in the public interest.

It’s election time soon. Which parties will put people’s interests ahead of propping up fossil fuel companies, and put in place a proper plan to tackle climate change?

In short, who will step up and show they are a party worth voting for?

 

 

More information on the impact of the oil price crash on climate change: Friends of the Earth briefing.

Simon Bullock is Senior Campaigner, Policy and Research Co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth UK.

Tony Bosworth is Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth UK.

This article is a synthesis of two articles published on the Friends of the Earth Policy & Politics blog:

 

 




389768

Fracking, the oil price crash, and the ‘greenest government ever’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This month, a powerful article in Nature highlighted yet again that most of the world’s oil, coal and gas needs to stay in the ground, if we want to prevent dangerous climate change.

This is the ‘unburnable carbon’ analysis that President Obama and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both made mainstream in recent months.

Related, over the last 6 months the world oil price has crashed, catching almost all economists and analysts by surprise. As well as profound economic effects, this crash affects ‘unburnable carbon’ in two broad and opposite ways.

It’s leading to cancellations of potential fossil fuel projects, as they become less or non-profitable. Great for stopping colossally dirty projects like Arctic oil and Canadian tar sands. And in the opposite direction, it makes oil cheaper, meaning people use it more. Bad for climate, though good for people’s pockets.

How should Governments react to this? A Government who genuinely thought climate change was a global priority would not sit passively by and let these conflicting effects of the oil price crash on climate sweep over us. It would act. Government surveys show the British public want more action on climate change.

Instead, we’re going all out for oil and fracking

Despite this, the sole response to the oil price crash from the UK Government is do the opposite! It announced detailed plans for tax cuts for oil companies to drill another 11-21 billion barrels of oil from the ground – way more than even the three billion barrels in the Government’s Wood Review on offshore oil and gas. Climate change impacts got one sentence of dismissal.

Then last week, it drove through a clause in the Infrastructure Bill – with almost no debate – requiring the UK to “maximise economic recovery” of North Sea oil.

These are crystal-clear examples of how Governments do not yet grasp that climate change requires a comprehensive plan. We can’t just do a little bit on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and think that this means we don’t need to do anything about fossil fuels.

And yet, for every announcement of a new wind-farm, or homes insulated, or rail investment, there is a corresponding – and often larger – Government announcement which makes climate change worse.

For example: £15 billion for new roads; whopping cuts in taxes on profits for North Sea oil drillers; consultations on which new airport to open; tax breaks for new fracking industries. High-carbon infrastructure has recently over-taken low-carbon infrastructure in the Government’s ‘infrastructure pipeline’.

After decades of subsidy, high-carbon industry shouldn’t need any more help. Colossally rich oil corporations know the global oil price yo-yos – they should have saved for this moment in the years when oil prices were over $100 a barrel and their profits were sky-high. But like the banks, they want their bail-out, and they know they will get it.

It’s shameful – that we have leaders who say climate change is desperately urgent, who call for more ambition, and yet who are still so deep in the pockets of fossil fuel companies they will not act and treat climate change as the emergency it is.

They are up-front about it too – the Government’s North Sea oil tax cut consultation is clear on three things – it’s derived in discussion with the oil barons; it’s being fast-tracked at their request; and the consultation primarily wants to hear from them.

Leaked letter shows the real agenda

They’re also not so up-front about it – you can see just how deeply the fracking industry is embedded in Government in this leaked-letter from George Osborne here.

The letter was from George Osborne, sent last September, to colleagues in the Cabinet’s Economic Affairs Committee, setting out how he wanted them to prioritise implementing the recommendations of a Cabinet Office report on how to get the shale gas industry going.

Of real interest here are the agreed plans between Government and fracking company Cuadrilla if their planning permission for fracking is turned down – which is exactly what Lancashire’s planners have recommended councillors to do.

According to the letter It is agreed that “if permission turned down … Cuadrilla to respond to concerns and appeal asap.” When that has happened, the Government will “Prepare PINS to respond promptly to appeal or SoS recovery if appropriate.”

In layperson’s terms, that means the Government will make sure the Planning Inspectorate fast-tracks the appeal or that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles intervenes. This stands in stark contrast to the line taken by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman that such decisions “should be up to local authorities“.

And how were these ‘asks’ made? Has Cuadrilla been meeting Ministers and officials, or has it been a few quiet words in the right ears? For let’s not forget that Cuadrilla’s chairman Lord Browne works in the Cabinet Office as a Non-Executive Director.

Moving to ‘full exploration’

The letter is also very revealing about longer-term plans for “moving to full exploration”. The Government clearly knows it’s losing the argument at the local level. Two recommendations stand out here:

  • “A cross-Government and industry group should be established … to assess the value and viability of focusing on a small number of sites in less contentious locations.”
  • “Public sector land (particularly MoD owned) should be mapped to potential sites and explored for possible concept testing.”

And the Government seems to accept that the bribes – sorry, benefits – it is offering top local communities to accept fracking aren’t working. The solution: it looks like offer them more. They plan to: “examine the nature of benefits to be offered to local communities where shale developments take place.”

They know they’re not winning the wider battle for hearts and minds either, so the Government is going to carry on doing the industry’s PR job and “build on existing network of neutral academic experts available to provide credible evidence-based views of matters of public concern”, and “develop a national communications plan on shale exploration.”

This isn’t the first evidence of collusion. Lord Browne has already intervened with the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, to try to exempt Cuadrilla from compliance with drilling waste regulations.

On another occasion, after a separate personal intervention by Lord Browne, Lord Smith “offered to halve the consultation time for a waste permit”, and “agreed to intervene with a county council over Cuadrilla’s planning permission and to identify further risks to Cuadrilla’s plans.”

Here’s how the government should be acting!

Instead of colluding with the fossil fuel industry to increase production, a Government genuinely committed to action on climate change would treat the oil price crash as an opportunity to protect the climate, help consumers and protect jobs. It would say:

  • We need a ‘just transition’ plan to get jobs and growth and industry out of North Sea Oil, and into North Sea Renewables like off-shore wind. There will be no economic devastation as when the coal mines closed. But we need to move away from oil, not prop it up. We will do all we can to help people and businesses build new, clean industries in the North Sea.
  • We will put in place a plan to keep demand for oil low, to help keep prices low, and ensure undrilled oil stays in the ground. We’ll put in place a proper strategy to make public transport, walking and cycling decent alternatives to motoring. We’ll drive far stronger standards on car and lorry energy efficiency. We’ll invest in a national electric vehicle network. We’ll act at EU and International level to persuade our fellow nations to do the same.
  • We will make sure the oil and gas price falls don’t damage the growing renewables industry. We’ll reassure investors by setting a clear 2030 power decarbonisation target, with policies to ensure we meet it.
  • We will reverse our fossil-fuel strategy to “maximise recovery” and focus instead on ‘minimising demand’ – in every part of the economy.
  • We will treat climate change as an emergency, and make tackling it a priority across all departments of Government.

People want more action from Government on climate change. Not less. Not a botched half-plan, and half-truths about their commitment to action.

The inadequate, partial, feeble responses on climate change are yet another expression of why so many people feel alienated from Westminster governments – they do not act on their promises, or sufficiently in the public interest.

It’s election time soon. Which parties will put people’s interests ahead of propping up fossil fuel companies, and put in place a proper plan to tackle climate change?

In short, who will step up and show they are a party worth voting for?

 

 

More information on the impact of the oil price crash on climate change: Friends of the Earth briefing.

Simon Bullock is Senior Campaigner, Policy and Research Co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth UK.

Tony Bosworth is Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth UK.

This article is a synthesis of two articles published on the Friends of the Earth Policy & Politics blog:

 

 




389768

Message to the UK: the fracking ‘bridge’ is burning! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On a week-long trip to the UK last fall, I was struck by how quickly the push to open up the country to fracking has been escalating.

Thankfully, activists are mounting a vigorous and creative response, and are more than up to the task of galvanizing the public to put a stop to this mad dash to extract.

A notable victory was scored yesterday when MPs forced amendments through the UK government’s Infrastructure Bill to keep fracking out of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and places where major aquifers would be placed at risk of pollution.

But still MPs failed to impose the fracking moratorium demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, and the fracking industry will still enjoy carte blanche to exploit shale gas across most of the country. The fight ahead will not be an easy one.

In rushing to exploit the UK’s shale gas reserves, the industry has spent millions on public relations and brazenly overridden the democratic will of British citizens by overturning laws that had prevented drilling under homes. The coalition government, meanwhile, has done the sector’s bidding at every turn.

We’ve seen all of this before. Indeed what is happening in the UK is modeled so closely on the US experience that an October 2014 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal spoke of “plotting an American-style fracking revolution in Britain“.

The frackers’ plan for the UK is rolling out …

So it’s worth playing close attention to how that earlier plot played out, both in the United States and in my own country, Canada. The US is not only where the gas companies honed various technologies used in fracking, but also where they honed their branding-like their pitch, originating in the early 1980s, that natural gas was a ‘bridge’ to a clean energy future.

As opposition has grown, they have cleverly funded studies stamped by big green organizations that understate fracking’s huge greenhouse gas impact; touted over-optimistic production forecasts; and in true shock doctrine style, tried to take advantage of geo-political crisis – like the gas cut-offs in Ukraine – to push through massive export plans that in any other circumstance could never gain legislative or public approval.

And when all else fails, government and industry have turned to criminalizing peaceful activism. They’ve dispatched heavily armed police against Indigenous communities blockading shale gas exploration in New Brunswick, Canada; gagged families impacted by drilling from criticizing the industry for an entire lifetime; and tried to charge as “terrorists” protesters in Oklahoma who unfurled a banner and dropped glitter at an oil and gas company’s office.

Yet even with such tactics, communities across North America are in full revolt. Last month came the huge news that New York State would ban fracking, following a steady stream of bans and moratoria passed in local communities, as well as years of sustained pressure from the activists and scientists – like biologist and author Sandra Steingraber, co-founder of New Yorkers Against Fracking – who have tirelessly documented and spread the word about the health and climate impacts.

The New York uprising continues in the Finger Lakes region of the state, where one Texas-based company hopes to create a massive “gas storage and transportation hub” – and where 200 blockaders have been arrested resisting its plans to fill abandoned salt caverns along Seneca Lake with enormous amounts of fracked gas.

A ban has also been passed in Vermont and there are moratoria in parts of California, as well as in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

And a month before the New York victory, the Texas town of Denton – the birthplace of the fracking boom and perhaps the most drilled area in the country-voted decisively to ban hydraulic fracturing.

The victory was achieved in a Republican town, in the face of an industry that poured hundreds of thousands into the battle – which was, in the words of a resident, “more like David and Godzilla than David and Goliath.”

Beware – the fracking industry knows no bounds of decency

The story of Denton has much to teach the growing anti-fracking movement in Britain. What it demonstrates is that, left to their own devices, the fossil fuel companies will come after your homes, your churches, your schools, your parks, your university campuses, and your sports stadiums – all of which have had wells drilled on or near them in Denton.

But despite all of the David Cameron government’s fanfare about “going all out for shale“, widespread resistance has already put the UK’s pro-fracking forces on the defensive.

A recent Guardian analysis found that only 11 new exploration wells are planned for 2015, with the industry bemoaning the “glacially slow” pace of the shale expansion-to say nothing of possible impacts from the global oil price shock now threatening extreme fossil fuels around the world.

Just last week, ahead of yesterday’s key Parliament vote on fracking legislation, green groups sent Cameron a petition with 267,000 signatures rejecting the dash for gas – something that undoubtedly helped to win key concessions.

Climate change minister Amber Rudd also came under pressure in yesterday’s debate, and was forced to concede that the government would cancel fracking licences if the Committee on Climate Change decided that exploiting shale gas would imperil the UK’s climate change goals, or explain its failure to do so.

It may seem that frackers in the UK and elsewhere will stop at nothing to have their way. But thanks to the rising global climate movement, the so-called ‘bridge’ is already burning. And it’s long past time to choose a different path.

 

 

Naomi Klein is a Canadian author and social activist known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalization and of corporate capitalism, and her recent book on climate change, ‘This Changes Everything‘.

This article was originally published on This Changes Everything, and has been updated by The Ecologist.

Photograph by Frack Free Denton.

 

 




389509

Message to the UK: the fracking ‘bridge’ is burning! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On a week-long trip to the UK last fall, I was struck by how quickly the push to open up the country to fracking has been escalating.

Thankfully, activists are mounting a vigorous and creative response, and are more than up to the task of galvanizing the public to put a stop to this mad dash to extract.

A notable victory was scored yesterday when MPs forced amendments through the UK government’s Infrastructure Bill to keep fracking out of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and places where major aquifers would be placed at risk of pollution.

But still MPs failed to impose the fracking moratorium demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, and the fracking industry will still enjoy carte blanche to exploit shale gas across most of the country. The fight ahead will not be an easy one.

In rushing to exploit the UK’s shale gas reserves, the industry has spent millions on public relations and brazenly overridden the democratic will of British citizens by overturning laws that had prevented drilling under homes. The coalition government, meanwhile, has done the sector’s bidding at every turn.

We’ve seen all of this before. Indeed what is happening in the UK is modeled so closely on the US experience that an October 2014 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal spoke of “plotting an American-style fracking revolution in Britain“.

The frackers’ plan for the UK is rolling out …

So it’s worth playing close attention to how that earlier plot played out, both in the United States and in my own country, Canada. The US is not only where the gas companies honed various technologies used in fracking, but also where they honed their branding-like their pitch, originating in the early 1980s, that natural gas was a ‘bridge’ to a clean energy future.

As opposition has grown, they have cleverly funded studies stamped by big green organizations that understate fracking’s huge greenhouse gas impact; touted over-optimistic production forecasts; and in true shock doctrine style, tried to take advantage of geo-political crisis – like the gas cut-offs in Ukraine – to push through massive export plans that in any other circumstance could never gain legislative or public approval.

And when all else fails, government and industry have turned to criminalizing peaceful activism. They’ve dispatched heavily armed police against Indigenous communities blockading shale gas exploration in New Brunswick, Canada; gagged families impacted by drilling from criticizing the industry for an entire lifetime; and tried to charge as “terrorists” protesters in Oklahoma who unfurled a banner and dropped glitter at an oil and gas company’s office.

Yet even with such tactics, communities across North America are in full revolt. Last month came the huge news that New York State would ban fracking, following a steady stream of bans and moratoria passed in local communities, as well as years of sustained pressure from the activists and scientists – like biologist and author Sandra Steingraber, co-founder of New Yorkers Against Fracking – who have tirelessly documented and spread the word about the health and climate impacts.

The New York uprising continues in the Finger Lakes region of the state, where one Texas-based company hopes to create a massive “gas storage and transportation hub” – and where 200 blockaders have been arrested resisting its plans to fill abandoned salt caverns along Seneca Lake with enormous amounts of fracked gas.

A ban has also been passed in Vermont and there are moratoria in parts of California, as well as in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

And a month before the New York victory, the Texas town of Denton – the birthplace of the fracking boom and perhaps the most drilled area in the country-voted decisively to ban hydraulic fracturing.

The victory was achieved in a Republican town, in the face of an industry that poured hundreds of thousands into the battle – which was, in the words of a resident, “more like David and Godzilla than David and Goliath.”

Beware – the fracking industry knows no bounds of decency

The story of Denton has much to teach the growing anti-fracking movement in Britain. What it demonstrates is that, left to their own devices, the fossil fuel companies will come after your homes, your churches, your schools, your parks, your university campuses, and your sports stadiums – all of which have had wells drilled on or near them in Denton.

But despite all of the David Cameron government’s fanfare about “going all out for shale“, widespread resistance has already put the UK’s pro-fracking forces on the defensive.

A recent Guardian analysis found that only 11 new exploration wells are planned for 2015, with the industry bemoaning the “glacially slow” pace of the shale expansion-to say nothing of possible impacts from the global oil price shock now threatening extreme fossil fuels around the world.

Just last week, ahead of yesterday’s key Parliament vote on fracking legislation, green groups sent Cameron a petition with 267,000 signatures rejecting the dash for gas – something that undoubtedly helped to win key concessions.

Climate change minister Amber Rudd also came under pressure in yesterday’s debate, and was forced to concede that the government would cancel fracking licences if the Committee on Climate Change decided that exploiting shale gas would imperil the UK’s climate change goals, or explain its failure to do so.

It may seem that frackers in the UK and elsewhere will stop at nothing to have their way. But thanks to the rising global climate movement, the so-called ‘bridge’ is already burning. And it’s long past time to choose a different path.

 

 

Naomi Klein is a Canadian author and social activist known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalization and of corporate capitalism, and her recent book on climate change, ‘This Changes Everything‘.

This article was originally published on This Changes Everything, and has been updated by The Ecologist.

Photograph by Frack Free Denton.

 

 




389509

Austria: ‘we will launch Hinkley C nuclear subsidy legal challenge by April’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Austria is to launch a legal challenge against the European Union’s (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley Point C, casting fresh doubt over the UK’s first planned nuclear reactors in 20 years.

In October, the EU approved the controversial £17.6bn subsidy deal for the power station, which is expected to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity by 2023.

David Cameron had previously hailed the subsidy deal between the French state-owned EDF and the UK government as “a very big day for our country”. He also described the signing of the Hinkley deal as marking “the next generation of nuclear power in Britain“, for its ability to meet energy demand and contribute to long-term security of supply.

But the appeal by Austria, a non-nuclear nation, will be launched by April and could delay a final investment decision by the UK government for over two years.

The Guardian understands that Luxembourg is very likely to support the case in the European Court of Justice, arguing that the UK’s loan guarantees – over a 35-year period – constitute illegal state aid. Another EU country may follow suit.

“There has been a high-level decision by our Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to challenge the EU decision on Hinkley within two months of its publication in the EU’s official journal”, said Andreas Molin, the director of Austria’s environment ministry. The journal’s publication is expected in the next fortnight.

Stefan Pehringer, a foreign policy adviser to the Austrian federal chancellory said: “The Austrian government has announced its readiness to appeal against the EC’s [European Commission] decision concerning state aid for the Hinkley Point project, as it does not consider nuclear power to be a sustainable form of technology – neither in environmental nor in economic terms.”

Can Hinkley survive the 2015 election?

Work has already begun at the Hinkley site, which the UK government said will have a capacity of 3.3GW, with the electricity it generates bought at a strike-price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, around double the market rate.

EDF had planned to sign a long-awaited funding agreement with its Chinese investment partners in March, thought to be key to settling procurement plans for the £24.5bn build, and the precursor to a final investment decision.

But the lawsuit may delay such plans, and introduce uncertainty about the UK’s attitude towards Hinkley after elections in May.

The Austrian government’s analysis suggests that European court cases of this nature typically last for one and a half years. But “as this is going to be a more complicated and fundamental case, it will last a little bit longer”, Molin said. “Two years could be a rough guess.”

He added: “If you accept the argument that Hinkley constitutes a ‘market failure’ as put forward by the Commission, you could apply it to all other means of electricity production, probably all other forms of energy conversion, and it might even apply beyond the energy sector. We think that the single energy market itself is at stake in this case.”

The Commission’s hurried and paradoxical decision

The EU’s original decision last year surprised many observers, as the then-competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia had previously expressed scepticism about Hinkley’s’ conformity with an exhaustive list of strict state aid criteria.

These govern proportionality, decarbonisation, the potential for market distortion, the definition of ‘market failures’ and, crucially, whether the public monies advance an “objective of common interest” for the bloc.

No grounds for the Commission’s volte-face have yet been published, but the Guardian has seen a draft of the EU decision from last October, suggesting that one key decider had been advised that Hinkley advanced an EU ‘common interest’ around security of supply.

A Commission investigation declared itself “unsure” whether the reactor would resolve the UK’s security of supply issues, and was unconvinced that ‘diversification’ of supplies, on its own, would justify the monies involved.

“The Commission however accepted that the decision was in line with the Euratom treaty”, the draft ruling says. The Euratom treaty obliges member states to facilitate investments in nuclear power and encourage ventures that lead to the technology’s development.

Molin said that Austria would argue that the Euratom treaty could not be used in this way in state aid cases, but there would be other lines of dispute. “We will try to prove that the commission did not consider all the things which it should have considered and that there were some procedural flaws”, he said.

Minutes from the Commission’s internal discussion of the issue show that the EC’s president at the time, José Manuel Barroso, viewed the Hinkley decision as unprecedented, and said that it “touched on a politically sensitive topic”.

No contract for the Hinkley plant was put out to tender, and the ruling sparked outrage among environmentalists in the EU, that shows no signs of dying down.

“The Commission took a political decision disguised as a legal one”, said Mark Johnston, a senior adviser to the European Policy Centre. “Barroso thought it would be easier to bend over for Cameron than to defend the single energy market. The significance of the case for energy investments across Europe could not be greater.”

A ‘fatal blow’, claim the Greens

Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP for the South West region, which includes Hinkley, said: “I think that this court case is certainly going to delay the signing and also the construction of Hinkley.”

“As one of the government’s main arguments for Hinkley was that it would solve the ‘energy gap’ before renewables could be brought onstream, it is a fatal blow to Hinkley as part of a future energy strategy for the UK.”

Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party, said that such claims now seemed risible. “I think we have seen the final generation of nuclear power, I am very pleased to say. It’s gone, it’s dusted. Lets focus on evidence-based renewables and energy conservation futures.”

But the UKIP MEP and energy spokesman, Roger Helmer, offered strong support for nuclear energy, qualified only by a caveat that the government’s Hinkley deal had been “excessively expensive” because of regulatory uncertainty from Brussels.

“Given that Hinkley is a trailblazer for the new generation of nuclear and now looks like being held up for a long period of time, it will be extremely damaging – not just for nuclear but across the whole spectrum of industry”, he said.

No grounds for such state aid in EU treaties

Dr Dörte Fouquet, a lawyer for the Brussels-based law firm Becker Büttner Held, which specialises in energy and competition law, said Austria’s chances of success were “pretty high” because there were no grounds for giving such state aid under EU treaty law and Austria would question the common European interest in building a nuclear power plant in the UK.

She added that long delays now appeared inevitable: “A court process that kicks off in May would take a minimum of two years and if it goes into appeals, you’d then be looking at another two years. So it could be a minimum of three and a maximum of four years or longer.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change remained bullish. “The UK is confident that the state aid case for Hinkley Point C is legally robust and we vigorously support the European Commission’s defence of its decision last year”, a  spokesman told the Guardian.

“This brings us one step closer to seeing new nuclear as part of our future low carbon energy mix. We have no reason to believe that Austria, or any other party, is preparing a case which has any merit.”

But DECC did not respond to questions about the effect that a lengthy court case might have on cost over-runs or a final investment decision.

The renewables industry has bridled at what some see as double-standards in EU decisions last year denying state aid to renewable energy in Germany, while allowing it for nuclear in the UK.

“It’s puzzling why the European Commission has decided to have a set of rules for one energy source and entirely different set for another”, said European Wind Energy Association spokesman Oliver Joy.

“If we want a level playing field for all energy forms in the EU then we need common standards that allow all technologies to compete on an equal footing.”

 

 

Arthur Neslen is the Europe environment correspondent at the Guardian. He has previously worked for the BBC, the Economist, Al Jazeera, and EurActiv, where his journalism won environmental awards. He has written two books about Israeli and Palestinian identity.

This article is a synthesis of two articles by Arthur Nelsen originally published on the Guardian: ‘Austria to launch lawsuit over Hinkley Point C nuclear subsidies‘ and ‘UK nuclear ambitions dealt fatal blow by Austrian legal challenge, say Greens‘. It is published on The Ecologist by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




389354

Austria: ‘we will launch Hinkley C nuclear subsidy legal challenge by April’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Austria is to launch a legal challenge against the European Union’s (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley Point C, casting fresh doubt over the UK’s first planned nuclear reactors in 20 years.

In October, the EU approved the controversial £17.6bn subsidy deal for the power station, which is expected to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity by 2023.

David Cameron had previously hailed the subsidy deal between the French state-owned EDF and the UK government as “a very big day for our country”. He also described the signing of the Hinkley deal as marking “the next generation of nuclear power in Britain“, for its ability to meet energy demand and contribute to long-term security of supply.

But the appeal by Austria, a non-nuclear nation, will be launched by April and could delay a final investment decision by the UK government for over two years.

The Guardian understands that Luxembourg is very likely to support the case in the European Court of Justice, arguing that the UK’s loan guarantees – over a 35-year period – constitute illegal state aid. Another EU country may follow suit.

“There has been a high-level decision by our Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to challenge the EU decision on Hinkley within two months of its publication in the EU’s official journal”, said Andreas Molin, the director of Austria’s environment ministry. The journal’s publication is expected in the next fortnight.

Stefan Pehringer, a foreign policy adviser to the Austrian federal chancellory said: “The Austrian government has announced its readiness to appeal against the EC’s [European Commission] decision concerning state aid for the Hinkley Point project, as it does not consider nuclear power to be a sustainable form of technology – neither in environmental nor in economic terms.”

Can Hinkley survive the 2015 election?

Work has already begun at the Hinkley site, which the UK government said will have a capacity of 3.3GW, with the electricity it generates bought at a strike-price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, around double the market rate.

EDF had planned to sign a long-awaited funding agreement with its Chinese investment partners in March, thought to be key to settling procurement plans for the £24.5bn build, and the precursor to a final investment decision.

But the lawsuit may delay such plans, and introduce uncertainty about the UK’s attitude towards Hinkley after elections in May.

The Austrian government’s analysis suggests that European court cases of this nature typically last for one and a half years. But “as this is going to be a more complicated and fundamental case, it will last a little bit longer”, Molin said. “Two years could be a rough guess.”

He added: “If you accept the argument that Hinkley constitutes a ‘market failure’ as put forward by the Commission, you could apply it to all other means of electricity production, probably all other forms of energy conversion, and it might even apply beyond the energy sector. We think that the single energy market itself is at stake in this case.”

The Commission’s hurried and paradoxical decision

The EU’s original decision last year surprised many observers, as the then-competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia had previously expressed scepticism about Hinkley’s’ conformity with an exhaustive list of strict state aid criteria.

These govern proportionality, decarbonisation, the potential for market distortion, the definition of ‘market failures’ and, crucially, whether the public monies advance an “objective of common interest” for the bloc.

No grounds for the Commission’s volte-face have yet been published, but the Guardian has seen a draft of the EU decision from last October, suggesting that one key decider had been advised that Hinkley advanced an EU ‘common interest’ around security of supply.

A Commission investigation declared itself “unsure” whether the reactor would resolve the UK’s security of supply issues, and was unconvinced that ‘diversification’ of supplies, on its own, would justify the monies involved.

“The Commission however accepted that the decision was in line with the Euratom treaty”, the draft ruling says. The Euratom treaty obliges member states to facilitate investments in nuclear power and encourage ventures that lead to the technology’s development.

Molin said that Austria would argue that the Euratom treaty could not be used in this way in state aid cases, but there would be other lines of dispute. “We will try to prove that the commission did not consider all the things which it should have considered and that there were some procedural flaws”, he said.

Minutes from the Commission’s internal discussion of the issue show that the EC’s president at the time, José Manuel Barroso, viewed the Hinkley decision as unprecedented, and said that it “touched on a politically sensitive topic”.

No contract for the Hinkley plant was put out to tender, and the ruling sparked outrage among environmentalists in the EU, that shows no signs of dying down.

“The Commission took a political decision disguised as a legal one”, said Mark Johnston, a senior adviser to the European Policy Centre. “Barroso thought it would be easier to bend over for Cameron than to defend the single energy market. The significance of the case for energy investments across Europe could not be greater.”

A ‘fatal blow’, claim the Greens

Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP for the South West region, which includes Hinkley, said: “I think that this court case is certainly going to delay the signing and also the construction of Hinkley.”

“As one of the government’s main arguments for Hinkley was that it would solve the ‘energy gap’ before renewables could be brought onstream, it is a fatal blow to Hinkley as part of a future energy strategy for the UK.”

Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party, said that such claims now seemed risible. “I think we have seen the final generation of nuclear power, I am very pleased to say. It’s gone, it’s dusted. Lets focus on evidence-based renewables and energy conservation futures.”

But the UKIP MEP and energy spokesman, Roger Helmer, offered strong support for nuclear energy, qualified only by a caveat that the government’s Hinkley deal had been “excessively expensive” because of regulatory uncertainty from Brussels.

“Given that Hinkley is a trailblazer for the new generation of nuclear and now looks like being held up for a long period of time, it will be extremely damaging – not just for nuclear but across the whole spectrum of industry”, he said.

No grounds for such state aid in EU treaties

Dr Dörte Fouquet, a lawyer for the Brussels-based law firm Becker Büttner Held, which specialises in energy and competition law, said Austria’s chances of success were “pretty high” because there were no grounds for giving such state aid under EU treaty law and Austria would question the common European interest in building a nuclear power plant in the UK.

She added that long delays now appeared inevitable: “A court process that kicks off in May would take a minimum of two years and if it goes into appeals, you’d then be looking at another two years. So it could be a minimum of three and a maximum of four years or longer.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change remained bullish. “The UK is confident that the state aid case for Hinkley Point C is legally robust and we vigorously support the European Commission’s defence of its decision last year”, a  spokesman told the Guardian.

“This brings us one step closer to seeing new nuclear as part of our future low carbon energy mix. We have no reason to believe that Austria, or any other party, is preparing a case which has any merit.”

But DECC did not respond to questions about the effect that a lengthy court case might have on cost over-runs or a final investment decision.

The renewables industry has bridled at what some see as double-standards in EU decisions last year denying state aid to renewable energy in Germany, while allowing it for nuclear in the UK.

“It’s puzzling why the European Commission has decided to have a set of rules for one energy source and entirely different set for another”, said European Wind Energy Association spokesman Oliver Joy.

“If we want a level playing field for all energy forms in the EU then we need common standards that allow all technologies to compete on an equal footing.”

 

 

Arthur Neslen is the Europe environment correspondent at the Guardian. He has previously worked for the BBC, the Economist, Al Jazeera, and EurActiv, where his journalism won environmental awards. He has written two books about Israeli and Palestinian identity.

This article is a synthesis of two articles by Arthur Nelsen originally published on the Guardian: ‘Austria to launch lawsuit over Hinkley Point C nuclear subsidies‘ and ‘UK nuclear ambitions dealt fatal blow by Austrian legal challenge, say Greens‘. It is published on The Ecologist by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




389354

Austria: ‘we will launch Hinkley C nuclear subsidy legal challenge by April’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Austria is to launch a legal challenge against the European Union’s (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley Point C, casting fresh doubt over the UK’s first planned nuclear reactors in 20 years.

In October, the EU approved the controversial £17.6bn subsidy deal for the power station, which is expected to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity by 2023.

David Cameron had previously hailed the subsidy deal between the French state-owned EDF and the UK government as “a very big day for our country”. He also described the signing of the Hinkley deal as marking “the next generation of nuclear power in Britain“, for its ability to meet energy demand and contribute to long-term security of supply.

But the appeal by Austria, a non-nuclear nation, will be launched by April and could delay a final investment decision by the UK government for over two years.

The Guardian understands that Luxembourg is very likely to support the case in the European Court of Justice, arguing that the UK’s loan guarantees – over a 35-year period – constitute illegal state aid. Another EU country may follow suit.

“There has been a high-level decision by our Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to challenge the EU decision on Hinkley within two months of its publication in the EU’s official journal”, said Andreas Molin, the director of Austria’s environment ministry. The journal’s publication is expected in the next fortnight.

Stefan Pehringer, a foreign policy adviser to the Austrian federal chancellory said: “The Austrian government has announced its readiness to appeal against the EC’s [European Commission] decision concerning state aid for the Hinkley Point project, as it does not consider nuclear power to be a sustainable form of technology – neither in environmental nor in economic terms.”

Can Hinkley survive the 2015 election?

Work has already begun at the Hinkley site, which the UK government said will have a capacity of 3.3GW, with the electricity it generates bought at a strike-price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, around double the market rate.

EDF had planned to sign a long-awaited funding agreement with its Chinese investment partners in March, thought to be key to settling procurement plans for the £24.5bn build, and the precursor to a final investment decision.

But the lawsuit may delay such plans, and introduce uncertainty about the UK’s attitude towards Hinkley after elections in May.

The Austrian government’s analysis suggests that European court cases of this nature typically last for one and a half years. But “as this is going to be a more complicated and fundamental case, it will last a little bit longer”, Molin said. “Two years could be a rough guess.”

He added: “If you accept the argument that Hinkley constitutes a ‘market failure’ as put forward by the Commission, you could apply it to all other means of electricity production, probably all other forms of energy conversion, and it might even apply beyond the energy sector. We think that the single energy market itself is at stake in this case.”

The Commission’s hurried and paradoxical decision

The EU’s original decision last year surprised many observers, as the then-competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia had previously expressed scepticism about Hinkley’s’ conformity with an exhaustive list of strict state aid criteria.

These govern proportionality, decarbonisation, the potential for market distortion, the definition of ‘market failures’ and, crucially, whether the public monies advance an “objective of common interest” for the bloc.

No grounds for the Commission’s volte-face have yet been published, but the Guardian has seen a draft of the EU decision from last October, suggesting that one key decider had been advised that Hinkley advanced an EU ‘common interest’ around security of supply.

A Commission investigation declared itself “unsure” whether the reactor would resolve the UK’s security of supply issues, and was unconvinced that ‘diversification’ of supplies, on its own, would justify the monies involved.

“The Commission however accepted that the decision was in line with the Euratom treaty”, the draft ruling says. The Euratom treaty obliges member states to facilitate investments in nuclear power and encourage ventures that lead to the technology’s development.

Molin said that Austria would argue that the Euratom treaty could not be used in this way in state aid cases, but there would be other lines of dispute. “We will try to prove that the commission did not consider all the things which it should have considered and that there were some procedural flaws”, he said.

Minutes from the Commission’s internal discussion of the issue show that the EC’s president at the time, José Manuel Barroso, viewed the Hinkley decision as unprecedented, and said that it “touched on a politically sensitive topic”.

No contract for the Hinkley plant was put out to tender, and the ruling sparked outrage among environmentalists in the EU, that shows no signs of dying down.

“The Commission took a political decision disguised as a legal one”, said Mark Johnston, a senior adviser to the European Policy Centre. “Barroso thought it would be easier to bend over for Cameron than to defend the single energy market. The significance of the case for energy investments across Europe could not be greater.”

A ‘fatal blow’, claim the Greens

Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP for the South West region, which includes Hinkley, said: “I think that this court case is certainly going to delay the signing and also the construction of Hinkley.”

“As one of the government’s main arguments for Hinkley was that it would solve the ‘energy gap’ before renewables could be brought onstream, it is a fatal blow to Hinkley as part of a future energy strategy for the UK.”

Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party, said that such claims now seemed risible. “I think we have seen the final generation of nuclear power, I am very pleased to say. It’s gone, it’s dusted. Lets focus on evidence-based renewables and energy conservation futures.”

But the UKIP MEP and energy spokesman, Roger Helmer, offered strong support for nuclear energy, qualified only by a caveat that the government’s Hinkley deal had been “excessively expensive” because of regulatory uncertainty from Brussels.

“Given that Hinkley is a trailblazer for the new generation of nuclear and now looks like being held up for a long period of time, it will be extremely damaging – not just for nuclear but across the whole spectrum of industry”, he said.

No grounds for such state aid in EU treaties

Dr Dörte Fouquet, a lawyer for the Brussels-based law firm Becker Büttner Held, which specialises in energy and competition law, said Austria’s chances of success were “pretty high” because there were no grounds for giving such state aid under EU treaty law and Austria would question the common European interest in building a nuclear power plant in the UK.

She added that long delays now appeared inevitable: “A court process that kicks off in May would take a minimum of two years and if it goes into appeals, you’d then be looking at another two years. So it could be a minimum of three and a maximum of four years or longer.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change remained bullish. “The UK is confident that the state aid case for Hinkley Point C is legally robust and we vigorously support the European Commission’s defence of its decision last year”, a  spokesman told the Guardian.

“This brings us one step closer to seeing new nuclear as part of our future low carbon energy mix. We have no reason to believe that Austria, or any other party, is preparing a case which has any merit.”

But DECC did not respond to questions about the effect that a lengthy court case might have on cost over-runs or a final investment decision.

The renewables industry has bridled at what some see as double-standards in EU decisions last year denying state aid to renewable energy in Germany, while allowing it for nuclear in the UK.

“It’s puzzling why the European Commission has decided to have a set of rules for one energy source and entirely different set for another”, said European Wind Energy Association spokesman Oliver Joy.

“If we want a level playing field for all energy forms in the EU then we need common standards that allow all technologies to compete on an equal footing.”

 

 

Arthur Neslen is the Europe environment correspondent at the Guardian. He has previously worked for the BBC, the Economist, Al Jazeera, and EurActiv, where his journalism won environmental awards. He has written two books about Israeli and Palestinian identity.

This article is a synthesis of two articles by Arthur Nelsen originally published on the Guardian: ‘Austria to launch lawsuit over Hinkley Point C nuclear subsidies‘ and ‘UK nuclear ambitions dealt fatal blow by Austrian legal challenge, say Greens‘. It is published on The Ecologist by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




389354

Austria: ‘we will launch Hinkley C nuclear subsidy legal challenge by April’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Austria is to launch a legal challenge against the European Union’s (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley Point C, casting fresh doubt over the UK’s first planned nuclear reactors in 20 years.

In October, the EU approved the controversial £17.6bn subsidy deal for the power station, which is expected to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity by 2023.

David Cameron had previously hailed the subsidy deal between the French state-owned EDF and the UK government as “a very big day for our country”. He also described the signing of the Hinkley deal as marking “the next generation of nuclear power in Britain“, for its ability to meet energy demand and contribute to long-term security of supply.

But the appeal by Austria, a non-nuclear nation, will be launched by April and could delay a final investment decision by the UK government for over two years.

The Guardian understands that Luxembourg is very likely to support the case in the European Court of Justice, arguing that the UK’s loan guarantees – over a 35-year period – constitute illegal state aid. Another EU country may follow suit.

“There has been a high-level decision by our Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to challenge the EU decision on Hinkley within two months of its publication in the EU’s official journal”, said Andreas Molin, the director of Austria’s environment ministry. The journal’s publication is expected in the next fortnight.

Stefan Pehringer, a foreign policy adviser to the Austrian federal chancellory said: “The Austrian government has announced its readiness to appeal against the EC’s [European Commission] decision concerning state aid for the Hinkley Point project, as it does not consider nuclear power to be a sustainable form of technology – neither in environmental nor in economic terms.”

Can Hinkley survive the 2015 election?

Work has already begun at the Hinkley site, which the UK government said will have a capacity of 3.3GW, with the electricity it generates bought at a strike-price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, around double the market rate.

EDF had planned to sign a long-awaited funding agreement with its Chinese investment partners in March, thought to be key to settling procurement plans for the £24.5bn build, and the precursor to a final investment decision.

But the lawsuit may delay such plans, and introduce uncertainty about the UK’s attitude towards Hinkley after elections in May.

The Austrian government’s analysis suggests that European court cases of this nature typically last for one and a half years. But “as this is going to be a more complicated and fundamental case, it will last a little bit longer”, Molin said. “Two years could be a rough guess.”

He added: “If you accept the argument that Hinkley constitutes a ‘market failure’ as put forward by the Commission, you could apply it to all other means of electricity production, probably all other forms of energy conversion, and it might even apply beyond the energy sector. We think that the single energy market itself is at stake in this case.”

The Commission’s hurried and paradoxical decision

The EU’s original decision last year surprised many observers, as the then-competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia had previously expressed scepticism about Hinkley’s’ conformity with an exhaustive list of strict state aid criteria.

These govern proportionality, decarbonisation, the potential for market distortion, the definition of ‘market failures’ and, crucially, whether the public monies advance an “objective of common interest” for the bloc.

No grounds for the Commission’s volte-face have yet been published, but the Guardian has seen a draft of the EU decision from last October, suggesting that one key decider had been advised that Hinkley advanced an EU ‘common interest’ around security of supply.

A Commission investigation declared itself “unsure” whether the reactor would resolve the UK’s security of supply issues, and was unconvinced that ‘diversification’ of supplies, on its own, would justify the monies involved.

“The Commission however accepted that the decision was in line with the Euratom treaty”, the draft ruling says. The Euratom treaty obliges member states to facilitate investments in nuclear power and encourage ventures that lead to the technology’s development.

Molin said that Austria would argue that the Euratom treaty could not be used in this way in state aid cases, but there would be other lines of dispute. “We will try to prove that the commission did not consider all the things which it should have considered and that there were some procedural flaws”, he said.

Minutes from the Commission’s internal discussion of the issue show that the EC’s president at the time, José Manuel Barroso, viewed the Hinkley decision as unprecedented, and said that it “touched on a politically sensitive topic”.

No contract for the Hinkley plant was put out to tender, and the ruling sparked outrage among environmentalists in the EU, that shows no signs of dying down.

“The Commission took a political decision disguised as a legal one”, said Mark Johnston, a senior adviser to the European Policy Centre. “Barroso thought it would be easier to bend over for Cameron than to defend the single energy market. The significance of the case for energy investments across Europe could not be greater.”

A ‘fatal blow’, claim the Greens

Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP for the South West region, which includes Hinkley, said: “I think that this court case is certainly going to delay the signing and also the construction of Hinkley.”

“As one of the government’s main arguments for Hinkley was that it would solve the ‘energy gap’ before renewables could be brought onstream, it is a fatal blow to Hinkley as part of a future energy strategy for the UK.”

Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party, said that such claims now seemed risible. “I think we have seen the final generation of nuclear power, I am very pleased to say. It’s gone, it’s dusted. Lets focus on evidence-based renewables and energy conservation futures.”

But the UKIP MEP and energy spokesman, Roger Helmer, offered strong support for nuclear energy, qualified only by a caveat that the government’s Hinkley deal had been “excessively expensive” because of regulatory uncertainty from Brussels.

“Given that Hinkley is a trailblazer for the new generation of nuclear and now looks like being held up for a long period of time, it will be extremely damaging – not just for nuclear but across the whole spectrum of industry”, he said.

No grounds for such state aid in EU treaties

Dr Dörte Fouquet, a lawyer for the Brussels-based law firm Becker Büttner Held, which specialises in energy and competition law, said Austria’s chances of success were “pretty high” because there were no grounds for giving such state aid under EU treaty law and Austria would question the common European interest in building a nuclear power plant in the UK.

She added that long delays now appeared inevitable: “A court process that kicks off in May would take a minimum of two years and if it goes into appeals, you’d then be looking at another two years. So it could be a minimum of three and a maximum of four years or longer.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change remained bullish. “The UK is confident that the state aid case for Hinkley Point C is legally robust and we vigorously support the European Commission’s defence of its decision last year”, a  spokesman told the Guardian.

“This brings us one step closer to seeing new nuclear as part of our future low carbon energy mix. We have no reason to believe that Austria, or any other party, is preparing a case which has any merit.”

But DECC did not respond to questions about the effect that a lengthy court case might have on cost over-runs or a final investment decision.

The renewables industry has bridled at what some see as double-standards in EU decisions last year denying state aid to renewable energy in Germany, while allowing it for nuclear in the UK.

“It’s puzzling why the European Commission has decided to have a set of rules for one energy source and entirely different set for another”, said European Wind Energy Association spokesman Oliver Joy.

“If we want a level playing field for all energy forms in the EU then we need common standards that allow all technologies to compete on an equal footing.”

 

 

Arthur Neslen is the Europe environment correspondent at the Guardian. He has previously worked for the BBC, the Economist, Al Jazeera, and EurActiv, where his journalism won environmental awards. He has written two books about Israeli and Palestinian identity.

This article is a synthesis of two articles by Arthur Nelsen originally published on the Guardian: ‘Austria to launch lawsuit over Hinkley Point C nuclear subsidies‘ and ‘UK nuclear ambitions dealt fatal blow by Austrian legal challenge, say Greens‘. It is published on The Ecologist by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




389354