Tag Archives: support

On this day: April 10 explained simply: everything you need to know

Key Takeaways

Definition: On this day: April 10 is a core element for optimizing processes in the Eco Bio III Millennio sector.
Competitive Advantage: Proper implementation improves operational efficiency and reduces long-term costs.
Application: It requires initial context analysis, gradual testing, and constant data monitoring.
Trends: Integration with automation and AI is transforming On this day: April 10 best practices.

Updated: 19/04/2026 | Sector: Eco Bio III Millennio

In the Eco Bio III Millennio context, On this day: April 10 is one of the most relevant and discussed topics right now. This guide offers a complete overview: from the basics to practical applications, common mistakes to winning strategies for achieving concrete and measurable results.

Whether you are approaching this topic for the first time or want to consolidate your knowledge, you will find everything you need here to navigate confidently and fully understand the dynamics driving this trend in today’s landscape. Clarity is the starting point for any effective action.

[Tell HN] 95 days to go to the death of IE7

Thought I’d get the word out early. Internet Explorer 7’s support schedule is goverered by the release schedule of Windows Vista [1]. Standard (non-extended) support for this finishes on the 10th April [2].What this means is that by supporting IE7 with your sites and apps beyond this date you’re implicitly suggesting to your users that it’s OK to stay on a browser that’s no longer receiving security updates, which I think we’d all agree is a bad idea.You all looking forwards to this date too? :)[1] http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=8722
[2] http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?c2=11732

Fonte: HackerNews

Want to Make a Crypto Bot

Hi,
I am an ex-app developer (McKinsey, WalmartLabs) with a math/statistics background (UC Berkeley, UCLA) originally from Millbrae, California. I use Python, Ruby, Elixir, NodeJS, and learning Rust. Looking for anyone who is interested in developing an automated crypto trading bot on a legitimate exchange like Kraken, Binance or Coinbase. I'm lookng for someone who would want to develop this with me, and/or an investor who can support me to build this. I lost about 90% of my crypto on FTX, so my savings account is kind of starting from scratch, and I'm highly motivated to work now. To avoid what happened to me, we can run the bot on multiple exchanges to distribute co

Fonte: HackerNews

What is On this day: April 10 and why it matters in 2026

To fully understand On this day: April 10, we need to start with its definition and the context in which it operates. In the Eco Bio III Millennio sector, this concept represents one of the pillars on which the most effective and lasting strategies are built. It is not simply a passing trend, but a structured approach that responds to real and measurable needs of the contemporary market.

Its relevance is confirmed by a growing number of professionals and companies that adopt it as an integral part of their operational model. Those who choose to ignore it risk losing ground to competitors who, on the contrary, use it as a strategic lever to differentiate themselves and create added value for their customers and stakeholders.

Why On this day: April 10 is a priority in the Eco Bio III Millennio sector

The Eco Bio III Millennio sector is constantly evolving, driven by technological changes, new consumer expectations, and increasingly intense competitive pressures. In this scenario, On this day: April 10 emerges as one of the most powerful tools to address these challenges proactively and systematically, rather than reactively and in a fragmented way.

Available data shows that organizations that invest in On this day: April 10 record significant improvements in operational efficiency, customer satisfaction, and overall profitability. These results are not coincidental: they derive from a methodical approach that integrates analysis, planning, and continuous measurement of progress.

How to apply On this day: April 10 in practice

Moving from theory to practice with On this day: April 10 requires a structured and progressive approach. The first step is analyzing the current context: understanding where you are, what resources are available, and what goals you intend to achieve. This diagnostic phase is fundamental to avoid investing energy in directions that do not lead to the desired results.

Once the analysis is complete, you can proceed with gradual planning and implementation. It is advisable to start with small-scale pilot projects that allow testing the approach, collecting feedback, and making necessary corrections before scaling the intervention to the entire organization or broader project.

The most common mistakes with On this day: April 10 (and how to avoid them)

The first mistake many make when approaching On this day: April 10 is wanting immediate results without a clear strategy. This approach often leads to hasty decisions, wasted resources, and in some cases, counterproductive results that make it harder to recover the situation. Patience and planning are indispensable virtues in this context.

A second frequent mistake concerns the lack of monitoring and measurement. Without accurate and up-to-date data, it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken and make necessary corrections. Investing in analytics tools and dedicating time to reading results is not a luxury, but a strategic necessity for anyone who wants to get the most out of On this day: April 10.

The third mistake, often underestimated, is team misalignment. When the people involved do not share the same vision or do not fully understand the objectives, even the best strategy risks failing. Clear internal communication and continuous training are key elements to ensure everyone is rowing in the same direction.

Trends in On this day: April 10 for 2026

The landscape of On this day: April 10 in 2026 is characterized by a series of emerging trends that are redefining the rules of the game. Integration with artificial intelligence and automation is opening new possibilities that until recently seemed like science fiction, making it possible to achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency and personalization.

Another significant trend concerns the growing attention to sustainability and social impact. Companies and professionals operating in the On this day: April 10 sector are increasingly called upon to demonstrate not only their economic effectiveness, but also their positive contribution to society and the environment. This dual responsibility is becoming a decisive competitive factor.

Finally, extreme personalization is emerging as one of the main drivers of the evolution of On this day: April 10. Consumers and customers expect increasingly tailored solutions, capable of responding to their specific needs quickly and precisely. Those who can embrace this trend and develop the necessary skills to satisfy it will be able to build a solid and lasting competitive advantage over time.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What exactly is On this day: April 10?

On this day: April 10 is a structured and methodical approach that allows optimizing processes, resources, and results in the Eco Bio III Millennio sector. It is based on established principles and internationally recognized best practices, adaptable to different organizational contexts and sizes.

What are the main benefits of On this day: April 10?

The main benefits include: improved operational efficiency, reduced costs in the medium to long term, increased customer satisfaction, greater ability to adapt to market changes, and development of a sustainable competitive advantage.

How to get started with On this day: April 10 without prior experience?

The ideal starting point is training: there are numerous online resources, courses, and communities dedicated to On this day: April 10. Subsequently, it is advisable to start a small pilot project to gain practical experience before scaling the approach to broader contexts.

What are the main risks associated with On this day: April 10?

Main risks include hasty implementation without a clear strategy, lack of result monitoring, and team misalignment. A gradual, data-driven approach supported by effective internal communication mitigates these issues.

How long does it take to see results with On this day: April 10?

Timelines vary based on context and implementation complexity. Generally, the first measurable results related to On this day: April 10 emerge between 30 and 90 days from launch, while structural benefits consolidate in the medium-long term.

Conclusions and Next Steps

On this day: April 10 is a constantly evolving topic that requires attention, continuous updating, and a clear strategy. The information in this guide is a solid starting point, but real value comes from practical application and the ability to adapt to market changes.

Experimenting, measuring, and adapting are the keys to turning theory into tangible and lasting results. Remember: success with On this day: April 10 is not a single event, but a continuous process of improvement. Have specific questions? Leave a comment or contact us directly to explore the topic further with a sector expert.

100GW solar support in US-India climate talks, but no emissions cuts Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Hopes that India and the US might announce ambitious plans to co-operate in tackling climate change have proved wide of the mark.

A meeting here between the visiting US president, Barack Obama, and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, showed India determined to follow an independent line.

One agreement reached was on nuclear power: the two leaders smoothed the way for India to import US technology for any future nuclear plants, under a deal to limit the legal liability of US suppliers in the event of a nuclear power plant catastrophe.

Yes to renewables, no to emissions cuts

Modi and Obama also announced action to advance India’s transition to a low-carbon economy, and India reiterated its goal of increasing its solar target to 100 gigawatts by 2022, which the US said it would support.

Modi went on to urge nations with the greatest solar energy potential to join India in innovation and research to reduce the cost of the technology and make it more accessible.

But on emissions, there was no repeat of the recent agreement between the US and China reached just before the UN climate talks in Lima last December.

“The agreement that has been concluded between the US and China does not impose pressure on us”, said Modi. “India is an independent country. But climate change and global warning itself is huge pressure.”

He offered no indication of a reduction in the use of coal, which currently generates most of India’s power. However Modi did agree to phase out the use of the ‘super-GHG’ hydrofluorocarbon gases used in refrigeration and foam blowing – while insisting that India demands “equal treatment” in cutting GHGs.

Anu Jogesh, a senior research associate with the Centre for Policy Research’s Climate Initiative, said: “There was a lot of buzz in policy circles and the media that there might be some kind of announcement, not on emission cuts per se but on renewable energy. However, apart from the nuclear agreement, little else has emerged.”

But other analysts argue that there has been little time yet for Modi and Obama to develop a strong working relationship, and that it could be premature to dismiss the outcome of this meeting as disappointing.

What does this presage for Paris 2015?

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said that Modi and Obama had “stressed the importance of working together and with other countries to conclude an ambitious climate agreement in Paris in 2015.” But there was no sign of any advances on key issues.

Before last month’s UN climate talks in Lima, Peru, India said it had put in place several action plans for achieving Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which are key elements of the climate agreement due to be concluded at the next round of talks in Paris in December.

However no details of India’s INDCs emerged during Obama’s visit, as officials continued to maintain that its INDCs will be announced “at an appropriate time with specific contributions.”

Last week Modi hinted at his country’s thinking on climate when he called for a paradigm shift in global attitudes towards climate change – from “carbon credits” towards “green credits”:

“Instead of focusing on emissions and cuts alone, the focus should shift to what we have done for clean energy generation, energy conservation and energy efficiency, and what more can be done in these areas.”

India is the world’s third largest GHG emitter, after China and the US. However it generates only two tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per capita, compared with 20 tonnes in the US and eight in China.

Nivedita Khandekar is a Delhi-based independent journalist who writes on environmental, developmental and climate change issues for Climate News Network and other news media. Email: nivedita_him@rediffmail.com; Twitter: @nivedita_Him .

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged agreement, climate, india, modi, obama, solar, support, talks on 27/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

Election 2015: finally, our chance to ditch Trident Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Trident has in the last few weeks become one of the most potent symbolic political markers for the forthcoming election, and is likely to feature heavily in the debates.

Some of us who have been closely involved in the issue for decades may have been taken by surprise … previous promising moments have come and gone with minimal fuss and it has been a challenge not to become cynical.

But this time is different, and there are a number of factors at play, not least the rise of the smaller parties.

Whilst they lost the referendum back in September, the SNP were closer than most were expecting a year ago to successfully breaking up the union. Since then they have experienced a surge of support, are likely to increase their representation in Westminster in May and could well be a crucial dimension in any power arrangement after the election.

They have already highlighted the removal of Trident bases from Scotland as an absolute condition of any support they may give in negotiations. Statements have been uncompromising, so that it will be a big political challenge to row back from them should they come under pressure to change course.

A strong Green challenge could prove decisive

The Green Party, previously hoping to secure 2-3 seats on a very good day, could become serious challengers for more. Perhaps equally importantly, Green candidates up and down the country could capture many left-wing votes from disillusioned left wing voters who see the cautious positioning of Labour with dismay.

Some have even been suggesting that the Greens could do more damage to Labour prospects than the threat UKIP has to the Tories, in a sort of Ralph Nader moment.

They already have more members than UKIP and the LibDems, and could break through 50,000 in the coming few weeks. Of course, it is moments like these, with the Greens punishing the larger parties for their reckless support of unsustainable neo-liberal capitalist solutions, that their influence is strongest.

So far, particularly on the Trident issue, Labour has been captured by the narrative around legacies of lost elections in the dim and distant past. But their paranoia about being seen as a left wing could yet cost them more votes than it secures. It is about time they realized that the public is in a very different place.

When in the 1980s, heavily influenced by the fear-induced Cold War, a strong unilateralist stance may well have lost crucial support in various parts of the country, it is today generally ambivalent towards investment on Trident.

A time of austerity and cuts just when a new generation of submarines demands major investment could yet prove fatal to the project.

Is this a clever way for the UK to spend £4 billion a year?

Much has been made by campaign groups of the £100bn lifetime cost of the system, which is a reasonable estimate given the uncertainties involved in financial forecasting over such a long period.

Perhaps more meaningful, though, is the annual spend … and this will soon be shooting up from around £2.5bn today towards £4bn a year throughout the 2020s, with capital costs consuming a full one third of the whole defence procurement budget across the decade.

In Tuesday’s Commons debate former Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey used parliamentary privilege to expose the fact that the army is being asked to come up with plans to make do with manpower levels around 60,000 – a massive cut and one likely to reverberate around the Shires.

This creates unusual allies between anti-nuclear activists and armed forces constituencies.

Cheaper dual-capable nuclear options to Trident that could also plug the armed forces financial gap are now being considered seriously, promising to split the pro-deterrence lobby, enabling some to join the clamour for a reassessment and a less distorted government review later in 2015.

Cold war warmed up?

But remember: Trident is a weapon system dreamt up and developed in a Cold War context. Skirmishes and threats at the margins of Europe aside, no-one seriously considers the prospects of Britain facing an aggressive and totalitarian nuclear superpower alone as significant.

And yet that is the only scenario that could just justify the independent nuclear deterrent that both the Tory-led government and Labour Party are currently committed to hollowing out the armed forces for.

At a time when the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) hangs in the balance and states parties meet in New York for their every-five year review (at the same time as the election), Britain’s leadership is critical. And yet we are nowhere, our credibility severely dented by this insistence on wasting billions on our own arsenal.

Nuclear weapon states meet in London in early February to consider their game plan at the conference. The hopes of them pulling any scrawny rabbits out the hat at this final hour seem dim indeed.

Your vote can help rid us of this terrorist monstrosity

Returning to the election, the best we can realistically hope for from Labour is that it retain its commitment to a minimum credible nuclear deterrent – with some ambiguity around the posture and systems this entails, on the basis that Trident must be included in the Defence and Security Review soon after the election.

This will enable smaller parties, notably the SNP and the Greens, to take on a critical role in post election talks and demand a change in policy on Trident.

But what they do before the election matters too: the more they raise Trident in the campaign, the more they reflect public opposition to the spend, and the more influential they are in the result, the stronger their elbow at this crucial point becomes.

Perhaps then we will see a new government pause, order another delay and review, and perhaps we may yet see them move back from committing to a new generation of nuclear weapons before it’s too late and the money is committed.

Voters in Britain have a bigger chance than they have ever before to bring an end to Britain’s addiction to nuclear weapons, and cause an important upset to the global nuclear order.

Demo: Wrap up Trident – today, midday at the MOD in London.

Paul Ingram has been the Executive Director for the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) since 2007. BASIC works in the US, UK, Europe and the Middle East to promote global nuclear disarmament and a transformation in strategic relationships using a dialogue approach.

He was also until recently a talk show host on state Iranian TV promoting alternative perspectives on strategic matters, and taught British senior civil servants leadership skills.

Previously Paul was a Green Party councillor in Oxford and co-Leader of Oxford City Council (2000-2002) and a member of the Stop the War Coalition Steering Group (2002-2006).

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged chance, ditch, election, finally, more, support, than, trident on 24/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 12/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 12/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 12/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 11/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 11/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 11/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged Ecologic, financial, foreign, fossil, fuel, soaraway, support, ukef on 11/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

Post navigation

← Older posts