Tag Archives: government

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

Seven ways the Government is pushing up our energy bills Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Household energy bills are in the spotlight again ahead of the general election in May.

A recent report showed that more than a million Britons in work can’t afford to heat their homes. Meanwhile a drop in wholesale energy costs led the government to tell the Big Six to cut consumer’s bills.

Ed Miliband has also called for Ofgem, the energy regulator (which is already investigating the Big Six), to have powers to force energy firms to reduce their tariffs to reflect wholesale prices.

E.On took the lead this week by saying it will reduce its standard gas charge by 3.5% with immediate effect, while one analyst, Emily Gosden, tweeted that British Gas stands to massively profit from the situation:

“If British Gas fails to cut energy prices despite falling costs, its profits for 2015 could soar by 60%, analyst Lakis Athanasiou estimates.”

So, to what extent could coalition Government policies contribute to high energy bills?

Paying out to big players

One of the themes of cross-party discussions on energy has been the importance of stimulating competition.

Yet in practice the coalition’s complex series of reforms to the power market have tended to reduce competition and increase Government price-setting and largesse – largely not for the new players, but for the existing power players.

There are two main mechanisms that are problematic in this respect: the capacity market and Contracts for Difference.

1. Capacity market windfall. The capacity market has paid quite a lot of large electricity suppliers for keeping their generating stations going when that’s what they were planning to do anyway.

In particular old nuclear stations were almost certainly going to carry on as long as they could. But they’re now being paid to do so as well.

Meanwhile, coal stations are the biggest problem for the climate, and getting coal out of the power system is widely agreed to be (at least on the supply end of the power equation) the cheapest way of improving our environmental performance.

But over this Parliament they have started generating much more of our power than before – despite the Government calling for a stop to overseas coal finance at international climate talks, saying no to new coal without CCS, and enacting an Emissions Performance Standard for new coal.

The Capacity Market is now going to pay them to keep UK coal plants open, whilst the Carbon Floor Price is taxing them to close them down. Consumers lose both ways. I unusually find myself agreeing with Head of Centrica Sam Laidlaw on the “inherent paradox” in this situation.

2. Contracts for Difference supporting big energy firms – and Hinkley: The Contract for Difference (CfD) support mechanism really suits big players, who can keep out the smaller players and so maintain the existing system that has been responsible for the prices we see.

There is considerable complexity, little transparency over contract allocation, and considerable risk in investing for energy development upfront – a situation where the risks are best dealt with by large players with legal and public affairs teams.

Despite setting itself against consumer subsidies for nuclear power in the Coalition Agreement, the proposed new power station at Hinkley Point will have many implicit subsidies under CfD, such as grid connection, accident insurance, and repayment risks covered by Government.

Despite this, its index-linked headline cost of power will still be higher than onshore wind, and probably ground-based solar well before it gets built. If it ever does.

Failing to help citizens lower their bills

The best way for consumers of energy to lower their bills is to use less. Not by shivering in the dark but by using the gas, electricity and heating fuel more efficiently. This is not only a social good but should cut emissions too. How well have the coalition done in encouraging energy savings?

3. Green Deal ‘disappointing’: The Green Deal – the Government’s flagship project for efficiency – has been a “disappointing failure“ according to Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, with poor planning, communications and implementation.

4. ECO cut: Another scheme, the only publicly funded source of energy efficiency work on homes, called ‘ECO’ was cut in a move that PM Cameron alledgedly said constituted “cutting the green crap”.

This happened when the Government were on the back-foot politically after Ed Miliband pledged to freeze consumer energy prices.

This meant a considerable loss of momentum on efficiency installation – and so higher bills for consumers in the longer-term – and a windfall of around £245 million for energy suppliers, according to analysis by Association for the Conservation of Energy.

5. EU efficiency target blocked: The UK has also been highly obstructive in seeking agreement on a new EU wide target that would provide the certainty for a new round of efficiency gains. Much of the momentum for energy efficiency – and thus for lower bills – comes from EU targets and initiatives (don’t tell UKIP).

Examples include the product standards which provide savings of over £100 on the average bill (see chart 11).

Keeping the UK system stuck in the past

Not acknowledging the economic and security threat of climate change means not thinking ahead to a new way of doing energy. The future will not look like the past. There will be cheaper and better ways of getting energy services, unless UK policy locks us into the old way of doing things.

6. Blocking wind and solar: The cheapest forms of low carbon power will soon be onshore wind and solar. Senior members of the Government are blocking wind and undermining solar, despite David Cameron hailing Britain’s renewable power success at Ban Ki Moon’s summit last year:

“We’ve more than doubled our capacity in renewable electricity in the last 4 years alone. We now have enough solar to power almost a million UK homes.”

7. Decentralised energy: The coalition’s Green Investment Bank has recently announced £200m of funding for community energy schemes, but it is not fulfilling its full potential.

The GIB could do a lot more if it was given fully-fledged borrowing powers or if it was expanded into a broader state investor similar to green investment structures like Germany and France.

A number of major banks are now arguing that the future will be a decentralised smart grid. UBS are the largest private bank in the world and are advising that large-scale power stations (such as the ones supported by the capacity market and nuclear CfDs) will be rendered redundant.

Similar warnings about the rise of decentralised systems have come from Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays and other private banks advising investors on value for money.

 

 

Dr Doug Parr is Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk.

 




389111

UK ministers prepare for 2017 GM crop rollout Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The government is preparing for the planting of GM crops in the UK by putting in place ‘rules’ to govern their use once the EU has finalised its new regulation – which could take place next week.

In a letter to the Beyond GM campaign group, Lord de Mauley states that “the government will ensure that pragmatic rules are in place to segregate GM and non-GM production, so that choice is facilitated.”

Alarming campaigners, this looks like a significant weakening of the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto which commits the party to “develop a legally-binding protocol covering the separation of GM and non-GM material, including clear industry liability.”

He also makes the astonishing claim that “cross pollination is, again, a normal process between compatible plant species and there is nothing different about GM crops in this respect.”

He is apparently unaware that cross pollination from GM crops introduces GM genes into nearby fields and the wider environment – undermining his later statement: “We support the principle that farmers should be free to choose whether to adopt GM cultivation.”

The last time the UK government engaged in a serious consideration of co-existence of GM, organic and non-GM crops it commissioned Scimac, a pro-GMO industry body to write the rules – and adopted them wholesale in 2002.

There is now good reason to fear that the Government intends to brush the dust off Scimac’s GMO industry focused, voluntary ‘Code of Practice‘. De Mauley’s use of the term ‘rules’ rather than ‘laws’ or ‘regulations’ only adds to such suspicions.

The other danger is that the rules will be made “pragmatic” for the farmers of GM crops who want to be made exempt from liability if organic and non-GM crops and habitats are contaminated – rather than for organic producers and others who want to avoid contamination with GM seeds and pollen.

Commercial plantings ‘at least a few years’ away

The revelation comes in a letter to campaign group Beyond GM from junior environment minister Lord de Mauley, in response to the Beyond GM initiative The Letter from America which was delivered to the Prime Minister’s office in November.

It also provides some reassurance to campaigners who have feared that proposed changes in the EU’s GMO authorisation process would lead to GM crops being grown in England as early as the 2015 planting season:

“We do not expect any commercial planting of GM crops in the UK for at least a few years as no GM crops in the EU approval pipeline are of major interest to UK farmers”, writes de Mauley.

However the letter leaves no doubt that the Government intends to press ahead with growing GM crops in the UK as soon as it is expedient to do so – provided it wins the next general election. During its period in Government, the Conservative Party has become increasingly supportive of growing GM crops in the UK.

But even a Labour election victory could produce the same result. Its 2013 ‘Feeding the Nation‘ food policy review states: “Biotechnology cannot, by itself, increase the UK’s domestic food supply, but it can be one of the tools used to ensure better resilience in the UK food chain, and to reduce environmental damage.”

But at least Labour acknowledges the need for public acceptance: “GM may have a role in UK food security and environmental protection, but public views – informed by the science – must also be heard. Public and political acceptance is vital, as is proof of its benefits to the environment and producers.”

European Parliament vote imminent after secret negotiations

It is likely that the European Parliament will vote in favour of the proposed GMO authorisation process in its imminent plenary session on the 13th of January and thereby open up the EU to GM cropping as early as spring 2015.

This so called ‘opt-out’ regulation is really an ‘opt-in’ measure, as its effect would be to breach the existing de facto moratorium on GMOs, and free up countries such as the UK which want to press ahead with the cultivation of GM crops.

The proposal has already been through a behind-closed-door, non-transparent process known as the trialogue – where the European Commission, Parliament and representatives of the Council of Ministers secretly wheel and deal to facilitate the passage of legislation.

Despite the efforts of the EP’s Environment Committee representatives, the trialogue process stripped out all mandatory measures to prevent contamination of non-GM crops and establish liability rules to give non-GM farmers legal and financial protection.

These issues will be left to EU Member States. Some will put in place robust and legally binding arrangements to protect non-GM farmers and the countryside even if they constrain GMO production – but on current form, the UK is unlikely to be among them.

Action is needed now

The fact that there are virtually no commercial GM crops suitable for the UK in the pipeline does not mean that any of us can feel confident of a GM free future for the UK:

  • The EU’s push to sweep away the ‘Precautionary Principle‘, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, indeed all legal and technical obstacles to GMOs in our farming and food, will increase momentum from the start of 2015.
  • There is a possibility – albeit a remote one – that Syngenta’s GM maize (GA21) with tolerance to glyphosate could find some uptake in the UK by 2016.
  • It is very likely that research institutions in the UK will gear up their GM crop trials and, using taxpayer money, plant more research field trials to benefit the GMO industry and private patent holders.
  • At the same time GM ingredients and products are increasingly finding their way into the UK food system.
  • And of course there is the long running and ongoing scandal that supermarkets refuse to put GM labels on livestock products where the animals have been fed genetically engineered feed.

Lord de Mauley’s letter assures Beyond GM that “In the UK, the Government believes people should know what they are buying in shops or in restaurants.”

But this form of words is much less robust than the 2010 manifesto promise to “ensure that consumers have the right to choose non-GM foods through clear labelling.” Not that the 2010 promise has been kept – products from animals reared on GM feeds are not labelled nor does the government have any plan to require it.

His statement that the government “regards safety as paramount and will only agree to the planting of GM crops and the sale of GM foods if it is clear that people and the environment will not be harmed” also appears reassuring.

But it lacks the rigour of the 2010 manifesto promise to “not permit any commercial planting of GM crops until and unless it has been assessed as safe for people and the environment.” Moreover he makes it clear that the UK will accept the EU’s “robust evaluation system” for GM crops – widely criticised as grossly inadequate and subservient to industry wishes.

Again, this gives little cause for confidence that the Government will put in place effective GM labelling regulations, or measures to protect farmland, the countryside, and the food chain from GMO contamination.

Raising voices and getting heard

Individuals and organisations representing nearly 60 million US citizens – just under 25% of the total adult population – have signed and endorsed the Letter from America which sets out the US experience of GMO food and farming, and warns us not to follow this example.

This is just the tip of the mounting opposition to GMOs in the US, which follows years of growing environmental contamination with herbicides and the decimation of wildlife, including the near extinction of the Monarch butterfly.

The fact that David Cameron – the head of what was meant to be Britain’s “greenest ever government“ – has no interest in citizens’ concerns about GMOs was made clear when he passed the Letter on to Defra. Environment Secretary Liz Truss indicated the same when she, in turn, passed the letter on to a junior minister.

Nonetheless, we are grateful for Lord de Mauley’s reply because it highlights the need for more active and vocal citizen engagement – so that the next time a letter on the issue of GMOs is delivered to 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister is on the doorstep to receive it, and replies in person.

Through campaigns such as the Letter from America, GM Free Me, our support of networks such as Mums Say No to GMOs and other initiatives which will be rolled out during 2015, we aim to stimulate and facilitate an effective opposition to government- and industry-backed GMO invasion of the UK.

GM crops might not be ready for planting in the UK in 2015 or even 2016 – but the ground is being prepared for them now, as is the GMO creep onto our supermarket shelves and into our food.

That means that now is the time for citizens to find their voices, speak up and campaign effectively – especially in the run-up to the 2015 election.

 

 

Lawrence Woodward is founder and director of GM Education and a co-founder of Beyond GM, where a version of this article first appeared.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Oxford Real Farming Conference: Lawrence Woodward and Pat Thomas will be discussing the issues raised in this article at the Oxford Real Farming Conference – tomorrow Tuesday 6th and Wednesday 7th of January 2015.

 




379555

Fracking in the UK: what to expect in 2015 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The current UK coalition government has overseen the greatest fossil fuel boom since the discovery of North Sea oil, but the controversy that surrounds shale has made it an interesting factor in the run-up to this year’s general election.

The government has shown absolutely no evidence that it is willing to slow down its committed march towards the commercial development of shale gas.

For example, the government recently approved amendments to the infrastructure bill which, amidst heavy public resistance, will allow fracking companies to extract shale from right underneath people’s homes.

This is irrespective of a wide range of academic reports listing both health and environmental implications, as well as direct human rights inflictions.

Chancellor George Osborne also pledged a further £35 million in the Autumn Statement towards the development of shale gas, with £5 million in particular dedicated to twisting the public’s arm on the matter.

And with the introduction of a Task Force on Shale Gas headed by the ex-environmental minister Lord Chris Smith, the energy industry is very serious in styling a UK fracking boom on America’s recent ‘shale revolution’.

Political instability in Eastern Europe has also contributed to the pro-fracking agenda and has encouraged the government to pursue an easier option over greener, alternative energy sources that may take longer to develop.

Shale has continuously been hyped as a cheap energy source that will define UK energy independence from foreign imports – a view discredited by the government’s own energy researchers.

Environmental opposition

An increasing amount of communities across the UK have begun organising attempts to resist fracking proposals in their local area.

Talking to DeSmogUK, Hannah Walters from Frack Off UK said: “This is the fastest growing social movement in the UK right now.

“There are currently around 170 anti-fracking community groups actively resisting this industry on a day-by-day basis with several more forming each week. We’re expecting that number to pass 200 as we move into 2015.”

For example, residents in Fife, Scotland are now urging their council to postpone fracking developments due to worrying reports on health implications and environmental pollution.

However, campaigners are likely to be heavily scrutinised by the police. In December, it was revealed that the police asked Canterbury Christ Church University to hand over a list of members of the public who attended a fracking debate on its campus.

While the University declined the request, it follows similar disclosures that police have been monitoring political activities at campuses around the country, as well as spying on groups that use non-violent methods in their campaigning.

Health impacts

At the end of last year, a hard-hitting report was commissioned by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation and delivered to Prime Minister David Cameron. It cites human rights liabilities for the British Government if fracking commences commercially across the UK.

Focusing primarily on the health implications of people living near frack sites, the report called on the government to investigate the impact of fracking on the rights of individuals.

Other reports have also expressed concern regarding the implications on people around fracking sites due to the chemicals involved with hydraulic fracturing.

Talking to the Courier, Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “There is a growing body of evidence that environmental and health risks associated with onshore unconventional gas extraction, including coalbed methane, are inherent and impossible to eliminate.”

In a recent damning report by the government’s chief scientific adviser, the author of one of the chapters, Prof Andrew Stirling of the University of Sussex, warned that fracking could carry unforeseen risks that would replicate problems seen with asbestos and thalidomide.

The chapter states: “History presents plenty of examples of innovation trajectories that later proved to be problematic – for instance involving asbestos, benzene, thalidomide, dioxins, lead in petrol, tobacco, many pesticides, mercury, chlorine and endocrine-disrupting compounds.”

Caroline Lucas, MP for the Green Party, when recently writing for the Guardian also lambasted the government’s pursuit of fossil fuels as a “public health imperative”, adding that to save lives, “urgent change is needed”.

Industry decline

Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary has recently expressed his concern regarding a declining fossil fuel industry that needs to adapt to a changing climate and market, stating that the energy industry is “seeing a move from carbon capitalism to climate capitalism.”

“We know with climate change we have got to move out to a low-carbon agenda and we are already seeing the signs that the market is going to be helping to drive this”, he said.

Adaptability and divestment from fossil fuel holdings is a theme expressed by both the secretary and green business institutions, who argue for greater transparency to protect future investors.

They may have been inspired by events in the US where the rapidly grown shale industry has taken a big hit from declining oil prices.

The self titled ‘granddaddy’ of fracking, Harold Hamm, recently lost half of his multi-billion dollar fortune in a shockwave financial crisis that has led to doubts regarding shale as the saviour of US energy politics.

 

 

Richard Heasman writes for DeSmogUK and tweets @Richardheasman4.

This article was originally published on DeSmogUK.

 

 




388553

Blinded by the lights? How power companies just stole £1 billion – from us Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




So, the presents have been opened and the over-eating survived. What now remains of your ‘spirit of Christmas’? For me, the answer is always the same – it’s the lights.

Since childhood, they have fascinated me. I would wander the streets, marvelling at efforts people made to light up their houses and neighbourhoods.

It didn’t have to be much; just a symbolic willingness to do something that illuminated far more than it lit up. This has always been my ‘spirit of Christmas’.

Societies need their lights to be guided by, never more so than today.

I have been trying to find some of the same altruism or mysticism in the government’s own leap into ‘keeping the lights on’ politics. This has taken the form of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC’s) first round of ‘capacity market’ auctions.

Remember Enron? It’s a game …

An idiots guide to capacity markets would tell you they are essentially a game for idiots. You can’t auction the unknown. It becomes a game for gamblers not legislators.

So, predictably, in the first round of auctions Santa (ie the public) threw a £1bn (pre-Christmas) subsidy to big energy companies and they agreed to pocket it.

The nominal deal also included Big Energy agreeing to keep Britain’s lights on. DECC breathed a sigh of relief and went back to writing its own letters to Santa.

For most people, keeping the lights on remains a pretty important test of government competence … and energy companies know this. That is why, a couple of years ago, they started mothballing existing gas power stations (and permissions to build new ones).

On the surface, the explanation was that power prices were too low for the stations to remain viable. But behind the scenes, energy companies were already preparing to ‘game’ the system – and needless to say, keep the suckers (that’s us) in the dark.

Power companies ‘manufacturing insecurity’

If you can manufacture the prospects of a shortfall, you can manufacture the case for a new subsidy system to avoid it. Big Energy invented the idea of capacity markets and sold it to civil servants in DECC.

The embarrassment is that the government fell for such an obvious sucker punch. It wasn’t as though parliament lacked other / better choices.

In various sectors of a modern economy, maintaining reserve capacity is just a legal obligation. Major data centres – particularly those dealing in credit referencing and financial transactions – have to operate every second of every day. Heavy fines, market disqualification and / or imprisonment would follow a failure to ‘keep their own lights on’.

Similarly – until they were allowed to convert into casinos – all the major banks were obliged to maintain robust ‘reserve requirements’, sufficient to keep the banking ‘lights’ on too.

Moreover, I’m astonished at how quickly governments have forgotten the motivating effect that ‘the avoidance of going to prison’ can have in their discussions with corporate executives.

If this sounds too brutal, the government could just as easily have sequestrated the generating capacity that was being mothballed. If falling power prices (never passed on to the public) were making gas power stations uneconomic, the government could have bought them for a song.

Subsidies or safety nets?

The UK was never short of more coherent alternatives. The problems began with how we defined the problem.

In any economy, back up energy capacity is always difficult – if only because you never know how often, or how much, you will need it. The government’s most dubious assumption, however, was that this provision had to be marketised.

Once upon a time, such back-up generation power would have been referred to as Britain’s ‘strategic reserve’; a back-up, held and operated by the State, providing society with a safety net, not a market.

Today, a different version of the same thinking could have taken the form of building more interconnectors, particularly with Europe. These would have been much cheaper (and quicker) than an everlasting round of bribes and bungs.

Within a more imaginative mindset, the government could have financed measures promoting reduced energy consumption rather than increased energy production.

One of the minor / major tragedies of the UK’s first round of capacity market ‘auctions’ was that less than 1% of the contracts went into such ‘demand reduction’ measures.

Politicians could easily have changed the nature of the auction by specifying that 50% of the contracts would go into an energy politics designed to consume less … but they didn’t.

Instead, they actually made it harder for ‘demand reduction’ providers to compete by limiting their contracts to just one year, when new power generation contracts last up to 15 years (see ‘UK’s unlawful £35 billion support to fossil fuels in ECJ challenge‘).

No less boldly, they could have set a carbon ‘cap’ on where this energy came from, or a minimum proportion that had to come from renewable sources … but they didn’t do that either.

Britain’s capacity auctions were designed by and for energy producers; a point apparently lost on our political leaders – freshly returning from Lima discussions about cutting carbon emissions, rather than maintaining carbon subsidies.

Clean connections before dirty

Interconnectors could have offered Britain a much cleaner energy-balancing act than the capacity market auctions. Norway, Iceland and increasing parts of the EU can already offer renewable energy surpluses through the use of their interconnectors.

In the EU, what also matters is that retail electricity prices are 50% lower than in the UK. An increased use of interconnectors could keep Britain’s lights on and cut electricity costs at the same time. But none of this would have propped up the rewards to Britain’s Old Energy cartel.

To get out of the trap Britain is in, we have to start looking for a new source of ‘illumination’, and within a different mindset. The good news is that this is where many of today’s brightest ‘guiding lights’ are already working.

Seasonally, perhaps I should have gone looking for three Wise Men to offer you, but maybe two and two halves will suffice.

Following yonder stars

The two ‘halves’ are different organisational ‘stars’ Britain should be taking its bearings from.

The first is a collection of academics based around the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany. Fraunhofer has just completed its latest scientific audit about Germany’s transition plans towards a clean/green energy economy. The Audit’s conclusion is as stark as it is inspirational –

“It is economically to our [Germany’s] advantage to move as quickly as possible to a system of 80% renewable energy”, said Eicke Weber, the institute’s director and a professor of physics at Freiburg University.

80% ?!… Britain’s current political leaders would have palpitations about Committing to half this amount … in their political lifetimes! Yet what the Germans seem to grasp is that this is as do-able as it is desirable. But it involves a fundamental shift in mindset about what ‘keeping our lights on’ actually means.

Aiding and abetting this collectivity of German scientists and engineers is the Twitter-site of their Energy Transition movement – @EnergiewendeGER. The site offers a constant stream of energy insights that are tragically missing from the UK energy debate.

But it is to the smaller ‘lights’ that we might want to direct the most heartfelt Seasonal blessings to. They are the equivalent of the individual houses whose Christmas lights I gazed at as a child, and whose lights seemed to capture the sense of vision and hope that politics often lacks.

An American abroad

The first of these ‘lights’ is Craig Morris (a refugee Americam living in Germany). Against all odds, Morris has maintained a broadsheet that many in the Environmental movement have come to rely on.

Operating beneath the banner of ‘Petite Planete‘ his Renewables International internet platform constantly analysed (and corrected) all the garbage, misinformation and ‘dark light’ put out by climate-denying lobby organisations.

His has been a David and Goliath endeavour – buttons versus billions – that defied the might of money and power. Yet even Renewables International has its limits.

Faced with a dwindling supply even of buttons, the continued existence of RI itself is now in question. If there was ever a case for crowd-funding something that consistently ‘keeps the lights on’ about brighter choices, this is it.

No less ‘illuminating’ is the work of my second wise man – Jeremy Leggett, the founder of Solar Century and now SolarAid. Leggett came back from Lima with a plan to replace every oil-burning lamp in Africa with a solar lamp, by 2020.

Into the darkness of continued global oil and coal subsidies, Leggett wants us to shine the light of renewable energy into the lives of those least able to do so for themselves. Re-writing Aladdin, he promises to swap new lamps for old, clean for dirty.

Whilst global leaders continue to throw money at an unsustainable past, Leggett (and others) want us to ‘light up’ a different future.

New lights for old

My guess (and hope) Is that society Is looking for new lights to follow. And these lights will be sustainable, accountable, open and equitable: with new voices leading where today’s Leaders fear to go.

These are ‘lights’ that would have us invest in a future we can survive in, dis-invests in the one that is destroying us, and which remembers that this ‘Petite Planete‘ of ours is the only one we’ve got.

I guess that, as a child, this was the ‘illumination’ I began looking for as I gazed in over garden gates.

As the year ends, yet another report, Renewable energy versus nuclear power – comparing financial support – details the way that consumers, across the EU, could see their electricity bills cut by 37% (and more) if government’s shifted support from nuclear to renewables.

It is unlikely even to register in a British debate that remains trapped in backward looking, ‘Dim vs Dimmer’, energy politics. For brighter choices, we need to get out more; taking greater notice of the ‘lights’ outside, and less of the lobbying inside.

Have a Brave New Year!

 


Alan Simpson is a recovering politician, Energiewende admirer, advisor on energy policy, climate change and fuel poverty.

Twitter: Alan tweets @AlanSimpson01.

This article was originally published at Evernote.

Video: ‘Lights’ by Ellie Goulding.

 




388438

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987