Reuters Blogs

UK News

Insights from the UK and beyond

July 8th, 2009

‘Green’ expert sees red over UK climate pledges

Posted by: Peter Griffiths

Professor Sir David King, the British government’s former top scientific adviser, is no stranger to controversy.

 

He ruffled feathers on both sides of the Atlantic in 2004 when he described climate change as a more serious threat to the world than terrorism.

 

Earlier this year, he said the Iraq war may come to be seen as the world first’s “resource war”, based on oil rather than weapons of mass destruction.

 

Now the South African-born academic risks putting more politicians’ noses out of joint.

 

In a speech in Oxford this week, King accused Gordon Brown of talking tough on climate change, but failing to follow his words up with action, mainly due to a lack of public money.

 

“It is relatively easy, and this is from my direct experience, for a prime minister to make a speech on climate change which sounds very committed, but very much more difficult for a prime minister to persuade the Treasury (finance ministry) to put the finance behind that,” King told the 2009 The Times/Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment at Keble College, Oxford.

 

“There is a long distance in government between saying what you think is needed to be said and then doing in terms of making the budgets available.”

 

Rich nations’ pledges to spend big chunks of their economic stimulus packages on “green projects” have had mixed results, he added.

 

South Korea has put an estimated 80 percent of its stimulus money into environmental projects, China roughly 50 percent, while the British government is far behind on about 8 percent, King told delegates.

 

“What happened between Number 10 (Brown’s office) and the decision making process?  I suppose I am going to point at the Treasury,” King said.

 

The gap between politicians’ fine words and practical action can often be blamed on the government’s reluctance to try to “back winners” with state subsidies.

 

“That philosophy then blocks the way in the transition between statements from the prime minister and emerging policy,” King said.

 

Brown would strongly dispute that analysis. In a speech last month, the prime minister compared the challenges posed by climate change to the rebuilding of Europe after World War Two.

 

He said Britain was at the forefront of the fight against global warming and will support 50 billion pounds of low carbon investment in the current spending period.

 

King, who is the first director of the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment at the University of Oxford, said he was disappointed by the poor turnout of senior politicians at the World Forum, a three-day conference with many of the world’s top climate scientists.

 

“I tried to pull in a lot of IOUs,” he said. “But where was (business secretary) Lord Mandelson, where was (energy and climate change secretary) Ed Miliband, where was (opposition Conservative leader) David Cameron?”

December 8th, 2008

Plane stupid?

Posted by: Stephen Addison

Environmental protest group Plane Stupid manage to prevent at least 21 flights taking off when  they  invaded a runway at Stansted airport for five hours on Monday morning.

The group are protesting over the government’s decision to allow the expansion of Stansted Airport with a second runway. The protest also follows the decision last week by Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon to delay the decision on whether to build a third  runway at Heathrow until January.

Plane Stupid is the group that draped banners from the roof of the House of Commons and from a plane on the runway at Heathrow in February.

They say such direct action is vital to get the message across about the danger to the environment of aviation emissions. Do you agree?

July 9th, 2008

Climate change: the vision thing

Posted by: Stephen Addison

pollution.jpgLeaders of the G8 and the world’s developing nations have agreed a “shared vision” on fighting climate change — but long-standing differences have prevented them agreeing on any specific targets.

The G8 on its own favours a halving of harmful emissions by 2050 but industrialising nations like China and India will not sign up to that goal, arguing that their primary commitment is to improve the living standards of their people.

Without them on board, the U.S. will not ratify any agreement to cut its own emissions.

The “vision” declaration has been hailed by G8 leaders as a useful step ahead of 2009 when they will return to the issue and when America will have a new president with a greater mandate to take action.

But green groups are scornful. The WWF’s Global Climate Initiative calls it “pretty pathetic.”

Should world leaders be trying harder, or have fears of climate change have been overstated?

What’s your view?