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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ofcom have made a provisional decision (technically it’s called an ‘initial view’) to exclude the Green Party from the general election debates.

This is a shameful and irrational decision. For here is the central point about Ofcom’s deliberations. There must – of course! – be consistent criteria for who gets included and who gets excluded from the debates.

If the criteria are backward-looking, looking based on what happened at the last General Election, then the Green Party must be included in the debates. For the Green Party got someone elected to Westminster – Caroline Lucas – at the last general election, unlike UKIP.

If the criteria based on current support, then the plain fact is that the Green Party have overtaken the LibDems in the polls. The Greens are consistently ahead now in Yougov results, which are the most regular polls by far: see their latest chart, showing the long-term trend, and now showing the Greens consistently ahead of the LibDems.

So, if the criteria are focussed on the present, once again, the Green Party must be included in the debates. This is the crux of the matter: if UKIP are a ‘major Party’, then so are the Greens, and that if the LibDems are a ‘major Party’, then so are the Greens.

Membership numbers – how’s this for a ‘surge’?

Another objective measure for Ofcom to apply would be member numbers. And here too the Greens have a story to tell. Latest figures show that our present membership has reached 31,492 in England & Wales, and close to 40,000 including Scotland and Northern Ireland.

That’s level pegging with UKIP, which claimed 40,000 members in December. And it’s slightly smaller than the LibDems, who reported 44,000 members in April 2014, trumpeting a “membership surge” with numbers rising by about 1,000 a year, a tad under 2.5%.

Now compare that growth rate to the Greens – our membership rose by an amazing 123% over 2014, and we have added 4,324 new members since the beginning of December – over the festive period when most peoples’ minds are fixed on matters other than politics.

At this rate, we look set to overtake both LibDems and UKIP in short order. So by whichever measure, the Green Party must be included in the general election debates! There is no way around this logic. The Ofcom decision is wrong.

Let’s add something else important: that the Ofcom decision is unpopular and undemocratic. A recent ICM poll showed that fully 79% of the British public wants the Green Party included in the debates.

Moreover, even key opponents of the Green Party want the Greens included in the debates. Sadiq Khan is running the new Labour anti-Green attack unit. Yet even he wants the Green Party included in the debates.

All credit to him for this: this is how democracy is supposed to work, by political opponents arguing with each other in public view; not by one Party being excluded arbitrarily.

Are there any good arguments against the Greens’ participation?

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP, has already taken to Twitter to express his outrage: “it’s a disgraceful, indefensible decision by Ofcom”. And – most consequentially – David Cameron has already responded to the decision by insisting that he will not take part in the debates unless the Greens are included.

This will surely force the broadcasters to change their stance: for, if the cost of the Greens being excluded is that the debates don’t happen at all, surely that cost will be one that the broadcasters are unwilling to pay.

But are there are any good arguments against the Green Party being regarded as a ‘major party’ suitable to be included in the debates?

The only one I have heard that has any ‘legs’ at all (though it is not one that Ofcom highlights, to my knowledge) is that the Greens, unlike the other Parties, are not going to be contesting some seats at the General Election.

In fact, the Greens are already committed to contesting three quarters of the 573 seats in England & Wales – that’s 430 – and it looks like the Party may well end up contesting 80-85% of constituencies. In Cambridgeshire, where I’m the prospective Green candidate, we will have a full slate, and the same goes for neighbouring Norfolk and Suffolk.

Now, actually, we don’t of course know that the other Parties will contest all 573 England & Wales seats at the General Election, though in 2010 they did come very close. But they will certainly not be contesting seats in Northern Ireland – where the Green Party, which exists in Northern Ireland (and has elected representatives) will be taking part.

The position is clear. The Green Party is a national party, and as the #GreenSurge rolls on, so the number of seats in which there will be no Green Party candidate standing gets smaller and smaller.

The threat of a genuine alternative?

And here’s another couple of good reasons for including the Greens in the debates. The Green Party is the fastest growing political force in England – and, like the SNP, we are growing even faster in Scotland.

The inclusion of the Greens would make the debates so much more up-to-date and interesting … Caroline Lucas MP or Natalie Bennett, one of whom would represent the Green Party in the debates, would not only be the only woman there, but the only one of the five parties offering a genuine alternative.

For example, the Greens are the only one of the five parties opposing TTIP (the massive EU-US trade and investment deal now under negotiation). We are the only party opposing nuclear power and the UK’s ‘Trident’ nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

We are the only party supporting a Green New Deal as an alternative to endless economc austerity, promising to take the railways back into public ownership and to cut fares, opposing fracking and GM food and crops, supporting a Citizens Income and a Land Value Tax … the list of Green USPs goes on and on.

If Ofcom stick to their bad decision, and if none of the broadcasters include the Green Party, then it undermines the democratic legitimacy of the debates. In that event, it will be essential for a high-profile ‘alternative’ or ‘real’ debate to be set up which includes the Greens, and I believe that that not only should but would happen.

But it would be far better if the broadcasters were to recognise the widespread groundswell of opinion among media-professionals, politicians and the public that the Green Party should be included in the debates that have already been planned, and to make this happen.

You can help to sway Ofcom’s decision

Fortunately Ofcom’s ‘initial view’ is not a final decision. They can yet change their minds. I hope that the upsurge of outrage against this terrible decision will be so huge that they will have no option but to do so.

You can help in that process: for instance, by sharing this article on social media and on email – and by telling Ofcom exactly what you think of their decision, on their stakeholder forum. They are consulting on their ‘draft’ decision, now.

I have bent over backwards in this article to be fair to Ofcom. But there is no way around it: they are blatantly being unfair to the Greens, and unfair to democracy as a whole.

Let rationality and the people’s will prevail. Let the Ofcom decision be overturned, or let the broadcasters simply ignore that decision and make the 5-party debate happen – for, if the Greens are not there, then nor will David Cameron be, and there will then surely be no TV debates at all, this time.

It’s really very simple: #InviteTheGreens to the general election debates … If Clegg and Farage are there, then it is plain illogical to do anything else.

Rupert Read is the Green Party’s prospective Parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, and Chair of the Green House Think Tank, under whose auspices he recently co-authored a report on the state of democracy in an era of 5-party-politics: ‘Strangled by the duopoly: the collapse of UK democracy and some prospects for its revival‘.

The sheer scale of the fossil fuel reserves that will need to be left unexploited for decades if world leaders sign up to a radical climate agreement is revealed in a study by a team of British scientists.

It shows that almost all the huge coal reserves in China, Russia and the US should remain unused, along with over 260 billion barrels of oil reserves in the Middle East – the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s entire oil reserves.

The Middle East would also need to leave over 60% of its gas reserves in the ground.

The team from University College London’s Institute for Sustainable Resources (ISR) says that, in total, a third of global oil reserves, half of the world’s gas and over 80% of its coal reserves should be left untouched for the next 35 years.

This is the amount of fossil fuel, they estimate, that the world must forego until 2050 if governments agree on a realistic programme to ensure that global warming does not exceed the 2°C increase over pre-industrial levels agreed by policy makers.

The authors of the report, which is published in the journal Nature, say some reserves could be used after 2050, so long as this kept emissions within the CO₂ budget, which would be only about half the amount the world can afford to use between now and 2050.

They say a factor that might help in the use of fossil fuels is that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is expected to be much more widely deployable by mid-century, assuming it to be a mature technology by then.

No space for any more extreme energy

The study, funded by the UK Energy Research Centre, concluded that the development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil – oil of a poor quality that is hard to extract – are also “inconsistent with efforts to limit climate change”.

For the study, the scientists first developed an innovative method for estimating the quantities, locations and nature of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves and resources. They then used an integrated assessment model to explore which of these, along with low-carbon energy sources, should be used up to 2050 to meet the world’s energy needs.

The model, which uses an internationally-recognised modelling framework, provides what the authors describe as “a world-leading representation of the long-term production dynamics and resource potential of fossil fuels”.

The lead author, Dr Christophe McGlade, research associate at the ISR, said: “We’ve now got tangible figures of the quantities and locations of fossil fuels that should remain unused in trying to keep within the 2°C temperature limit.

“Policy makers must realise that their instincts to completely use the fossil fuels within their countries are wholly incompatible with their commitments to the 2°C goal. If they go ahead with developing their own resources, they must be asked which reserves elsewhere should remain unburnt in order for the carbon budget not to be exceeded.”

The prospects for an amicable discussion between China, Russia, the US and the Middle East on how to share the pain of leaving these reserves unexploited will demand exceptional diplomacy from all parties.

Prudent investors, keep clear of fossil fuels!

The report’s co-author, Paul Ekins, the ISR’s director and professor of resources and environmental policy, said: “Companies spent over $670 billion (£430 billion) last year searching for and developing new fossil fuel resources.

“They will need to rethink such substantial budgets if policies are implemented to support the 2°C limit, especially as new discoveries cannot lead to increased aggregate production.

“Investors in these companies should also question spending such budgets. The greater global attention to climate policy means that fossil fuel companies are becoming increasingly risky for investors in terms of the delivery of long-term returns. I would expect prudent investors in energy to shift increasingly towards low-carbon energy sources.”

After years of halting progress towards an effective international agreement to limit fossil fuel emissions so as to stay within the 2°C temperature threshold, hopes are cautiously rising that the UN climate talks to be held in Paris at the end of 2015 may finally succeed where so many have failed.

But reaching agreement will be only the first step: effective enforcement may prove an even bigger problem.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.