An ambitious ‘Apollo’ plan to make wind and solar power cheaper in every country in the world than electricity generated from coal, launched today, is already on the agenda for next week’s meeting of the G7 in Germany.

“Carbon-free energy must rapidly become less costly to produce than energy based on coal, gas and oil”, according to the Global Apollo Programme. “This requires a major scientific and technological programme of research, using the best minds in the world and the best science.”

The target is to ensure that “new-build base-load energy from renewable sources becomes cheaper than new-build coal in sunny parts of the world by 2020, and worldwide from 2025.”

All countries will be invited to join Apollo, and in doing so will commit to “devote at least 0.02% of GDP to public expenditure on the Programme over a 10-year period” from 2016 to 2015 in order to raise an estimated $150 billion.

The main foci of research are to be wind and solar power generation, electricity storage, and the ‘smart grid’ – a power grid engineered to accommodate many small distributed generators, and featuring ‘dynamic demand’ that responds to the amount of power that’s available moment by moment.

Apollo’s aims reflect the agreement by world governments to limit the world’s rise in temperature to 2C from the pre-industrial era, in order to avoid irreparable damage to the global climate system.

“This means an absolute limit on the total accumulated CO2 that can be produced”, states Apollo. “On present trends that limit will be breached by 2035. So we must urgently reduce our annual output of CO₂.”

Will Apollo gain traction?

The timing of Apollo’s launch is certainly impeccable. As well as feeding directly into next week’s G7 meeting, it also comes just as climate negotiators meet in Bonn to prepare the way for the substantive UN climate talks in Paris this December.

“We urge the Heads of Government to agree on a Global Apollo Programme by the Paris meeting in 2015”, Apollo states. “The Programme should begin immediately after that.”

Regardless of how committed national governments are – or are not – to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, none wish to be branded as ‘climate villains’ at the Paris talks, and all wish to appear to be making efforts in the direction of reducing emissions. Signing up to Apollo is clearly one way of doing this – while making no commitment to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

What is also going to help the Apollo gain acceptance is that it’s the brainchild of a highly influential (and richly titled) group of scientists, economists and businessmen at the heart of the British establishment.

They are Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser; the LSE’s Lord Richard Layard; Lord Gus O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary; The Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees; Lord Adair Turner, Former Chairman of the Financial Services Authority and the Committee on Climate Change; Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Report on climate change; and Lord John Browne, the former CEO of BP, who attempted to relaunch the company as ‘Beyond Petroleum’.

So when they say that “Over the last year the Programme has been privately discussed with Governments worldwide and has been widely welcomed … it is hoped that by the end of the year the major countries of the world will have decided to join”, they have to be taken seriously.

And when they state “it is hoped that the management of the Programme will be co-located with the International Energy Agency in Paris, but the Programme will include many countries that are not members of the IEA”, you can be sure that it’s already a done deal.

Still, a mountain to climb

But huge changes will be needed to bring the Apollo vision to reality, for example with the scale of investment into renewable energy. “We are talking about the greatest material challenge facing humankind”, the launch document states.

“Yet the share of global publicly-funded RD&D going on renewable energy worldwide is under 2%. Remarkably the share of all energy research in total publicly-funded R&D expenditure has fallen from 11% in the early 1980s to 4% today. This is a shocking failure …

“Public expenditure on R&D to reduce the cost of renewables has been minimal – some $6 billion. This cannot be a sensible balance of support. In Europe the position is similar to elsewhere: the ratio of public R&D to public subsidies for the supply of existing renewables has been roughly 1:30.

“At the same time, fossil fuel is getting a subsidy of at least $544 billion worldwide – making climate change worse, not better.”

So far investment in renewable energy technology has been left almost entirely to the private sector, Apollo points out. However this approach is at odds with other major technological advances that have taken place in modern times:

“Most of the main technological advances of the last hundred years have derived from publicly funded R&D – the computer, semiconductors, the internet, genetic sequencing, broadband, satellite communications, and nuclear power.

“Yet in the case of climate change the main focus has been on incentives for the private sector: carbon prices, feed-in tariffs, and regulatory standards.

“These are of course essential and must remain central to the climate change agenda for many decades. But publicly funded RD&D (research, development and demonstration) is also vital.”

And the authors conclude on an upbeat note: “By harnessing the power of the sun and wind in time, we have a good chance of preserving life on earth as we know it. Unlike fossil fuel, they produce no pollution, and no miners get killed. Unlike nuclear fission, they produce no radioactive waste.

“We are talking about a crisis more serious than most major wars. This is the biggest scientific challenge of the 21st century. Let us show we have the collective intelligence to understand and overcome the danger that faces us.”

More information: the Global Apollo Programme.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

An ambitious ‘Apollo’ plan to make wind and solar power cheaper in every country in the world than electricity generated from coal, launched today, is already on the agenda for next week’s meeting of the G7 in Germany.

“Carbon-free energy must rapidly become less costly to produce than energy based on coal, gas and oil”, according to the Global Apollo Programme. “This requires a major scientific and technological programme of research, using the best minds in the world and the best science.”

The target is to ensure that “new-build base-load energy from renewable sources becomes cheaper than new-build coal in sunny parts of the world by 2020, and worldwide from 2025.”

All countries will be invited to join Apollo, and in doing so will commit to “devote at least 0.02% of GDP to public expenditure on the Programme over a 10-year period” from 2016 to 2015 in order to raise an estimated $150 billion.

The main foci of research are to be wind and solar power generation, electricity storage, and the ‘smart grid’ – a power grid engineered to accommodate many small distributed generators, and featuring ‘dynamic demand’ that responds to the amount of power that’s available moment by moment.

Apollo’s aims reflect the agreement by world governments to limit the world’s rise in temperature to 2C from the pre-industrial era, in order to avoid irreparable damage to the global climate system.

“This means an absolute limit on the total accumulated CO2 that can be produced”, states Apollo. “On present trends that limit will be breached by 2035. So we must urgently reduce our annual output of CO₂.”

Will Apollo gain traction?

The timing of Apollo’s launch is certainly impeccable. As well as feeding directly into next week’s G7 meeting, it also comes just as climate negotiators meet in Bonn to prepare the way for the substantive UN climate talks in Paris this December.

“We urge the Heads of Government to agree on a Global Apollo Programme by the Paris meeting in 2015”, Apollo states. “The Programme should begin immediately after that.”

Regardless of how committed national governments are – or are not – to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, none wish to be branded as ‘climate villains’ at the Paris talks, and all wish to appear to be making efforts in the direction of reducing emissions. Signing up to Apollo is clearly one way of doing this – while making no commitment to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

What is also going to help the Apollo gain acceptance is that it’s the brainchild of a highly influential (and richly titled) group of scientists, economists and businessmen at the heart of the British establishment.

They are Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser; the LSE’s Lord Richard Layard; Lord Gus O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary; The Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees; Lord Adair Turner, Former Chairman of the Financial Services Authority and the Committee on Climate Change; Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Report on climate change; and Lord John Browne, the former CEO of BP, who attempted to relaunch the company as ‘Beyond Petroleum’.

So when they say that “Over the last year the Programme has been privately discussed with Governments worldwide and has been widely welcomed … it is hoped that by the end of the year the major countries of the world will have decided to join”, they have to be taken seriously.

And when they state “it is hoped that the management of the Programme will be co-located with the International Energy Agency in Paris, but the Programme will include many countries that are not members of the IEA”, you can be sure that it’s already a done deal.

Still, a mountain to climb

But huge changes will be needed to bring the Apollo vision to reality, for example with the scale of investment into renewable energy. “We are talking about the greatest material challenge facing humankind”, the launch document states.

“Yet the share of global publicly-funded RD&D going on renewable energy worldwide is under 2%. Remarkably the share of all energy research in total publicly-funded R&D expenditure has fallen from 11% in the early 1980s to 4% today. This is a shocking failure …

“Public expenditure on R&D to reduce the cost of renewables has been minimal – some $6 billion. This cannot be a sensible balance of support. In Europe the position is similar to elsewhere: the ratio of public R&D to public subsidies for the supply of existing renewables has been roughly 1:30.

“At the same time, fossil fuel is getting a subsidy of at least $544 billion worldwide – making climate change worse, not better.”

So far investment in renewable energy technology has been left almost entirely to the private sector, Apollo points out. However this approach is at odds with other major technological advances that have taken place in modern times:

“Most of the main technological advances of the last hundred years have derived from publicly funded R&D – the computer, semiconductors, the internet, genetic sequencing, broadband, satellite communications, and nuclear power.

“Yet in the case of climate change the main focus has been on incentives for the private sector: carbon prices, feed-in tariffs, and regulatory standards.

“These are of course essential and must remain central to the climate change agenda for many decades. But publicly funded RD&D (research, development and demonstration) is also vital.”

And the authors conclude on an upbeat note: “By harnessing the power of the sun and wind in time, we have a good chance of preserving life on earth as we know it. Unlike fossil fuel, they produce no pollution, and no miners get killed. Unlike nuclear fission, they produce no radioactive waste.

“We are talking about a crisis more serious than most major wars. This is the biggest scientific challenge of the 21st century. Let us show we have the collective intelligence to understand and overcome the danger that faces us.”

More information: the Global Apollo Programme.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

I am saddened to see Charles Kennedy, the man, die so young and it is a tragic loss for his family and his young son.

But many Lib Dems will not like my views on Kennedy the politician, for whom I had nothing but a deep distaste, following my dealings with him when I was Deputy Chair of the Party in the lead up to the Iraq War.

I do not share many of the positive sentiments being expressed about his politics today by the political / media establishment.

His reputation for opposing the Iraq War is fraudulent in many respects. He did all in his power to stop me organising the participation of the Liberal Democrats in the major Peace March which made his name, which I and others successfully pulled off despite him.

After we achieved this, he then tried (and failed) to block all Lib Dem protests against the war, including by me personally. He then proceeded to place a formal motion of censure against me eight times to the Federal Executive, making my position as Deputy Chair all but impossible.

A steadfast refusal to oppose the war

Again and again despite many invitations from Stop The War, he nor any other party leader would speak at the subsequent anti-war marches and he refused point blank to utter the phrase “I oppose the war”, until some time after the successful Brent bye-election after the outbreak of the war.

I ended up speaking at most of these as Deputy Chair of the Party, as I could get no one else to do so, including the enormous post invasion peace march which filled Hyde Park as far as the eye could see.

Kennedy’s true position, no matter what many many political commentators will claim today, was not opposition to the war but to sit on the fence, until the UN Security Council voted on the issue and to then decide whether or not to support the war by which time of course it would have been too late to stop it.

His pathetic slogan was “we are not the anti-war party but the pro-UN party.” They tried (and failed) to stop us using the clear anti-war “Lib Dems Say No” slogan but sought instead to use the fence-sitting phrase “Give Peace A Chance”.

I was determined to brand Kennedy as opposed to the war, so that not only could get we mobilise the party to stop the war, but that he and the parliamentary party would be forced to vote against the war in Parliament.

To be fair to him, he courageously did in the end vote against war and it is to his eternal credit that he did so, even if he never campaigned to stop it.

Keeping the lid pressed firmly down on party corruption

He repeatedly resorted to legal threats against me for trying to clean up the corruption of Lib Dem lobbyists in the Lords and or trying to clean up party funding.

He lied to the party over Lib Dem peerages, when he promised to respect the elected nominees of the party to the Lords, appointing instead of those duly elected by the party, the usual gaggle of cronies and donors. He should have faced trial and prison for this theft and corruption of our upper house in parliament.

And of course it was this cabal which led him to dragging the party through the dirt by accepting (and refusing to return) the stolen millions in party donations from the off-shore tax haven crook and fraudster Michael Brown.

His leadership inner circle was surrounded by a cabal of corporate lobbyists and tax haven reprobates, who repeatedly and often successfully suppressed the democratic decisions of conference – indeed I remember Kennedy telling conference that no matter what it voted on re peer elections, he could do whatever he wanted. Kennedy facilitated the continued capture of the Liberal Democrats by The Prostitute State.

I was appalled when I found out later that a number of these lobbyists knew of Kennedy’s tragic alcoholism when they funded and helped organise his leadership campaign.

Laying the foundations opf Cleggism

In many ways he was a victim of this and was completely out of his depth and unsuited to be leader, despite the outward appearances to the public and this naturally in my view then exacerbated his affliction.

He laid the ground-work for the disaster of Cleggism, by promoting the Liberal Futurists and the Orange Bookers to the centre of his leadership team.

One thing Charles was right on was tactics in relation to joining the coalition with Cameron, when he refused to vote in favour of it and advocated instead remaining on the opposition benches and voting on a supply and demand basis.

A year after the Iraq War march, Kennedy’s then Party President Navnit Dholakia demanded my resignation from the Federal Executive (of which I was the Deputy Chair) for telling conference that the leadership had refused point blank to implement the successful conference motion ending corporate lobbying corruption in the Lords among Lib Dem peers.

I had taken enough and resigned in anger. Kennedy resigned a year after the general election, due to his alcoholism, which had returned 62 Lib Dem MPs on a huge wave of support for the party after it had voted against the war in Parliament.

May he rest in peace.

Donnachadh McCarthy is a member of Occupy Democracy, co-organiser for Occupy Rupert Murdoch Week, a former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, and author of “The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought”. He can be reached via his website 3acorns. Follow on Facebook.

Petition: ‘Save the Human Rights Act‘ (38 Degrees).

Copies of ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ are available from theprostitutestate.co.uk. E-book version available from Lulu.com.

‘Chaos’ and ‘chaotic’ are frequently – perhaps even overly – used words. One dictionary definition is a “total lack of organisation or order”. That can be said certainly of the industrial logging sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Companies pay little heed to regulations, promises to forest communities go unfulfilled and government institutions show little or no will to hold them to account and protect the DRC’s vast natural heritage and resources.

But at the same time this chaos is organised and is ordered. It is to a large extent engineered by officials and companies for their own benefit. The institutions that should govern the forestry sector and enforce the law are not functioning effectively.

There is a woeful lack of transparency, with logging contracts not made public or only made public years after they were signed and no reliable official data available on permits, production and exports. Corruption is endemic and it appears that illegal activities in industrial logging concessions are the norm.

Nothing is being done to stop illegal logging and other abuses

In its new report Trading in Chaos, Greenpeace Africa reveals the findings of two years of investigations into the operations both at home and abroad of one of the key players in the DRC logging chaos, Lebanese-owned Cotrefor.

The results are a depressing cocktail of unpaid taxes, shocking mistreatment of employees, rampant irregularities in operational procedure and exceeding allocated quotas of the endangered tree species Afrormosia that are permitted to be logged.

Furthermore, such poor practice is evidently not proving a hindrance to Cotrefor exporting and trading their wood worldwide to destinations including China, the USA and the European Union.

And this is despite the fact that legislation such as the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR), exists with the sole purpose of preventing illegally sourced timber or timber products being placed on the European market.

Greenpeace has regularly demonstrated how sadly easy it is to become an illegal logger these days. And you can still ask European authorities yourself if you do not believe us.

Predictably the ones to suffer from the organised chaos in the DRC are members of the communities who form part of the estimated 40 million people who rely on the country’s vast forests for their livelihood.

They see little of the profits made by Cotrefor and other companies, valuable species are often logged out completely from their areas. Social obligations made between the communities and those wishing to begin logging operations, such as a school, healthcare or infrastructure near their land, are often not fully realized.

And it is not just people who suffer. One of mankind’s oldest relatives, the Bonobo, is found only in the DRC. Through its investigations Greenpeace Africa discovered that forest clearance for roads and other infrastructure is opening up vital habitat to poachers and further threatening the endangered ape near protected areas such as the Lomako-Yokokala faunal reserve.

There is an alternative – community forestry

Yet as depressing and familiar as this chaos and lack of impunity sounds, there is an alternative to the concession based model of industrial logging in the DRC. There is in existence a law that would concentrate more responsibility for their own lands in the hands of local communities.

Passed last year, Congo’s Community Forest Decree (Decree 10/1018) recognizes the customary ownership rights of local communities, stating that “Any local community can obtain a forest concession on a portion or the totality of the forests it owns on a regular basis by virtue of custom, in accordance with the conditions and procedures established by the present decree.”

The maximum area of these concessions is extremely large, at 50,000 hectares  – especially compared to the less than 5,000 hectares of legally recognized community forests in Cameroon. But even that need not be a limitation, given that

“in the case where a customary possession of a local community extends beyond the above mentioned surface area, the latter retains its customary rights on the portion that is not conceded and continues to exercise those rights in conformity with the concerned legislation.” Moreover within those areas, “Communities have full rights in the management of the forest concessions attributed to them”, with no time limit.

But there are serious problems. First, many of the people who should be able to benefit from the Decreee are unaware of its existence. Second, forest communities are not being provided with the tools to claim their forest rights, nor to manage their forests. And as the Rainforest Foundation warns, that institutional void could create a new set of problems.

The new law “is in itself unlikely to deliver sustainable and equitable outcomes because of lack of institutional capacity”, the RF warns. “In the absence of strong administration, weaknesses in the law and implementation measures could open the door to widespread forest destruction and other perverse outcomes.”

Government action desperately needed

Ultimately, in order to control this organised chaos and to stop companies like Cotrefor operating with total impunity, the DRC government needs to take action. They must fully investigate allegations in the Greenpeace Africa report and the existing moratorium on all new logging titles should be maintained until all conditions are met.

Furthermore to prevent the steady flow of illegal Congo Basin timber overseas, including from Cotrefor, the governments of timber-importing nations such as EU Member States, China and the USA need to open investigations immediately into companies trading timber products from the DRC.

Authorities must use every route open to them, including international human rights and labour laws and conventions, CITES, the Lacey Act and the EUTR, to stop and prevent illegal and destructive trade.

And DRC authorities, backed by foreign donors, need to provide the resources – in institutional support, training, mapping, planning and financing – to allow forest communities to gain title to their forests under Decree 10/1018, and manage them wisely.

Only if these measures are taken can the chaotic cycle of illegal logging in the Congo be broken and can the squandering of the country’s vast natural heritage that form part of the world’s second largest rainforest be stemmed.

Petition to Congo’s environment Minister: ‘Help the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo manage and protect their own forests!‘

The report: ‘Trading in Chaos‘ is published by Greenpeace Africa.

Raoul Monsembula is the Greenpeace Africa country director for the Democratic Republic of Congo.

This article was originally published by Greenpeace International, with additional reporting by The Ecologist.

In a surprise move, climate and energy protestors have struck a bewildering array of targets across the UK including David Cameron’s constituency office, London PR agencies for fossil fuel and nuclear companies, a World Coal Assocation conference, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and RWE Npower offices directly implicated in exacerbating fuel poverty.

The protestors came early this morning from the Reclaim the Power ‘climate camp’ under the shadow of Didcot Power Station in Oxfordshire, where they have been staging workshops over the weekend and preparing for today’s ‘day of climate action’.

As a result the Didcot B 1.36GW gas-burning plant has been on high alert in expectation of a site occupation – the 2GW coal-burning Didcot A having already closed down in 2013.

But Reclaim the Power wrong-footed fossil fuel industrialists, their security forces and police by striking where least expected – not at Didcot but at half a dozen other sites around the country.

DECC’s false solutions – CCS and fracking

Among the first targets was the World Coal Association conference on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), being held today at the Institute of Directors, London. Activists blocked both front and back entrances to the conference to protesting at the coal industry’s promotion of the technology, backed by DECC.

The technology is very expensive, has yet to be proven at a viable scale, increases the volume of coal that needs to be burnt in power stations by 30% or more to produce the same volume of power, and, according to the protestors, is “a smokescreen for the necessary action needed on climate change.”

Protestor Sam Taylor said: “Despite the coal industry’s desperate attempts, coal and other fossil fuels will never be clean and prevent the vital investments we need in renewables. CCS is a sticking plaster for our broken energy system: the government needs to stop subsidising fossil fuels, and we need a full transition to renewables now.”

Another dozen protestors blockaded the steps outside the DECC offices in a move aimed at the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Amber Rudd – a keen proponent of fracking who who is planning to open up most of the UK to the industry, including national parks, wildlife sites and drinking water aquifers, and is leading a second ‘dash for gas’ in the power sector.

“Against the advice of their own Committee on Climate Change, the government has approved the construction of up to 30 new gas-fired power stations, and intends to go ‘all out’ for shale gas – with up to two thirds of the UK licensed for fracking”, said Rowan Tilly.

“This new dash for gas is recklessly at odds with our national and international obligations on climate change. You can no longer tell where government ends and corporations begin and unless we act now we will soon find ourselves be locked into infrastructure which will burn carbon for years to come while killing off renewable energy.”

Masterminded by Mediazoo? Ineos’s ‘campaign of fear’

Across town at Imperial Wharf, eight activists – dressed as Mediazoo executives and turds – occupied the offices of PR firm Mediazoo to protest the company’s representation of fracking giant Ineos, arriving with a banner reading “Fracking is shit. You can’t polish a turd.”

Mediazoo, a PR company whose website boasts extensive experience of dealing with “industrial disputes”, “fatal accidents” and “child labour”, are consulting Ineos on PR and media strategy. Ineos have recently pledged £640m of investment in fracking in the UK.

Ineos Upstream CEO Gary Haywood recently stated “I want Ineos to be the biggest player in the shale gas industry.” Mediazoo were responsible for what UNITE described as Ineos’s “campaign of fear” during the dispute at Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland when 1,400 workers fought cuts to pay, jobs and pensions.

“Communities facing fossil fuel extraction don’t have big PR companies like Mediazoo to represent them, but here and across the world, we are seeing communities taking matters into their own hands to fight the energy giants and the grip they hold over our political system”, said Jacob Jones, one of the activists.

“Fracking is sold to us as a way of bringing down bills, but we know its part of the same system that caused 15,000 excess winter deaths last year because people couldn’t afford to heat their homes. It’s time to take back energy from the dirty big six and reclaim the power.”

Hanna Wheatley, another protestor at Mediazoo, said: “The burgeoning fracking industry in the UK is locking us into another generation of dirty energy that we can’t afford. We can’t let Ineos and their mates here at Mediazoo spin a web of lies around fracking – you can’t polish a turd.”

Greenwashing nuclear – but not today!

Meanwhile a dozen activists struck Soho based PR company Camargue, and turned it into a nuclear contamination zone – an action aimed at the firm’s client Horizon Nuclear Power.

Boiler suit clad activists cordoned off Camargue’s building with hazard tape in protest against the company’s business dealings with nuclear energy companies.

Horizon, wholly owned by Hitachi since 2012, intends to build up to three 1.35GW nuclear reactors on each of its two existing nuclear sites at Wylfa on Anglesey, Wales, and Oldbury in Gloucestershire.

“The public has a right to be informed about the real dangers of nuclear – from cancer to contamination to climate change”, said protestor Clare Jones from Reclaim the Power. “For the cost of building one nuclear power station you could build over 1000 offshore wind turbines.”

RWE NPower – fossil-fuelled fuel poverty

Meanwhile in Swindon, two protestors accessed the roof of RWE Npower’s offices and draped a banner down the building’s facade, while others remained at the front entrance.

RWE NPower is one of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies who control the UK’s energy supply, owned by Germany’s RWE, one of the EU’s biggest fossil fuel polluters, owning a huge open cast coal mines in Germany. The profit of the 6 biggest UK energy companies has increased tenfold between 2007 and 2013.

Joline, a protester in Swindon said: “I am doing this in solidarity with our friends in Germany, occupying and defending the last precious corner of the 5,500 hectares of the Hanbacher forest from the open cast mine owned by RWE.”

Another ten protestors struck at RWE Npower offices outside Leeds, which administers the company’s prepayment meters and debt collection divisions – systematically discriminating against the poorest consumers by making them pay the highest tariffs for their energy use.

Carrying a banner reading “Fight the Npower”, the group locked themselves across the entrance to the offices. These offices are  RWE Npower were targeted for their role in escalating fuel poverty, while receiving massive government subsidies.

Keith, a protester from Hebden Bridge, said: “We’re here today to highlight the hypocrisy of big energy companies profiting from a continued investment in destructive fossil fuels. RWE npower pay no corporation tax, while forcing the most vulnerable people deeper into fuel poverty through the use of prepayment meters, standing charges and debt collection.”

In the last three years RWE Npower made nearly £800 million pounds in profit but paid no corporation tax. Up to 15,000 people are estimated to die each year in the UK as a result of fuel poverty. Meanwhile households’ annual gas bills are expected to rise by £250 a year for the next five years.

Maisie Bell, a Care assistant from Bradford, added: “RWE Npower are the biggest CO₂ emitter in Europe. They are committing us to untold damage from climate change, while taking none of the responsibility. We’re here today to highlight the hypocrisy of big energy companies profiting from a continued investment in destructive fossil fuels.”

We accuse you, David Cameron!

And later this morning activists held a ‘love in’ in an impromtu bed outside Prime Minister David Cameron’s offices in his Witney constituency. “Despite Cameron’s professed support for renewable energy, the new Tory government are in bed with the fossil fuel industry”, said Reclaim the Power’s Ms Stacey.

“This continued cosying up with the ‘Big Six’ energy companies has got to stop. Corporations are raking in the profits from dirty energy, whilst Britain’s most vulnerable citizens are dying from fuel poverty, unable to heat and power their homes.

“Cameron claims to be a supporter of clean energy but his actions speak otherwise. If his government continue their support of the Big Six, they are putting the world on a fast track for destructive and irreversible climate change. People all over the world are building community-led renewable solutions to replace fossil fuels and its about time we got with the programme.”

Reclaim the Power, a direct action network that aims to draw the dots between the fossil fuel industry, climate change, and corporate power, have previously held protest camps in Balcombe and Blackpool, targeting fracking firm Cuadrilla and its associates.

Today’s unprecedented suite of actions was timed to coincide with the opening of UN climate negotiations in Bonn, a critical stage in the lead up the the main COP21 climate talks in Paris this December.

So far seven arrests have been reported.

More information: Reclaim the Power.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Shell tried to influence the presentation of a climate change programme it was sponsoring at the Science Museum in London, internal documents seen by the Guardian show.

The Anglo-Dutch oil group raised concerns with the museum that one part of the project “creates an opportunity for NGOs to talk about some of the issues that concern them around Shell’s operations.”

The company also wanted to know whether a particular symposium at the museum was ‘invite only’ – as that would ensure “we do not proactively open up a debate on the topic [of Shell’s operations]”.

The concerns are raised in a series of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and once again raise awkward questions about the influence of fossil fuel companies over Britain’s most valued cultural institutions.

“These emails reveal that the Science Museum is a significant cog in Shell’s propaganda machine”, said Chris Garrard, from the anti-oil sponsorship campaign group BP or not BP?

Shell – the ‘responsible’ oil company that’s set to drill in the Arctic

Shell is keen to present itself as a responsible company that is trying to tackle climate change but critics say its commitment to tar sands, deep water wells and Arctic exploration are at odds with this stance.

The emails, which have all names redacted, follow the decision by the oil company to become a principal sponsor of the Atmosphere, Exploring Climate Science gallery and the extended Climate Changing programme at the Science Museum.

The Atmosphere gallery was designed to deepen public understanding of global warming but Shell’s own climate change adviser – former oil trader David Hone – made recommendations on what should be included.

Emails show the close relationship between the Science Museum and Shell with the two discussing how they should react to expected criticism from Greenpeace following a Guardian story in October 2014.

In that story, the Science Museum’s former director Chris Rapley criticised Greenpeace’s successful campaign to make Lego drop its partnership with Shell.

In another communication with the Science Museum dated 9 December 2014, a Shell staff member gives what they call a “heads up” on a Reuters story reporting that Shell’s Arctic drilling contractor, Noble, has pleaded guilty to eight charges of pollution and poor record keeping.

‘Kindly keep out the riff-raff!’

But the most damaging email is dated 8 May 2014 when a Shell employee receives an update from the Science Museum and replies:

“Regards the rubbish archive project [an interactive exhibition examining waste in the context of climate change], [redacted] and I have some concerns on this exhibition particularly as it creates an opportunity for NGOs to talk about some of the issues that concern them around Shell’s operations.”

It goes on: “Could you please share more information with us on the symposium event planned for September? As you know we receive a great deal of interest around our art sponsorships so need to ensure we do not proactively open up a debate on the topic. Will it be an invite only event?”

And it ends: “Regarding the gallery update, can I check whether you have touched base with David Hone to see if he would like to participate in the content refresh?”

The Science Museum insisted on Sunday that there could be no question of compromise because final editorial control had been retained and judgment exercised by the curator alone. It has also published this web page to assuage public concerns.

Ian Blatchford, the museum’s director, said: “The Science Museum has a long-standing relationship with Shell, including most recently sponsorship of Atmosphere, our climate science gallery, which provides our visitors with accurate, up-to-date information on what is known, what is uncertain, and what is not known about this important subject.

“The gallery has been hugely popular since it opened four years ago and has now been visited by more than 3 million people. As with all of our exhibitions and galleries, the editorial vision and control sits with our curatorial team.”

‘Our shared interest in inspiring young people about science’

The Science Museum said it was normal for a sponsor to make suggestions or raise questions but that did not mean action resulted. Blatchford said: “I can confirm that not a single change to an exhibition resulted from these email exchanges.”

A Shell spokesperson said her company and the Science Museum had a long-standing relationship, based on shared interests such as the need to inspire young people about science.

“Alongside the many other scientists, academics and educators on the advisory panel for Atmosphere, David Hone, Shell’s climate change adviser, has been consulted with regards to gallery content”, the spokesperson said.

“We have occasionally made wider suggestions regarding the Climate Changing programme but at all times the Science Museum retained full editorial control over its plans and content.”

Garrard said he was concerned that the close relationship between big oil and the Science Museum was set to continue with BP sponsoring a forthcoming exhibition, Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age.

A recent book argued that fossil fuel companies were sponsoring the arts around the world on an “epidemic” scale as a cynical PR strategy to improve their reputation.

Terry Macalister is energy editor of the Guardian. He has been employed at the paper and website for 12 years and previously worked for the Independent and other national titles.

See the email correspondence (PDF file).

Join the Guardian‘s ‘keep it in the Ground’ climate change campaign in urging the world’s two biggest charitable funds to move their money out of fossil fuels.

This article was originally published by the Guardian. It is republished by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.