One of my favourite films is Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. In the final scenes a guard, strapping the hero into an evil-looking torture chair, advises him,

“Don’t fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating.”

In Brazil, I always found the bizarre world of a repressive bureaucracy entertaining – in part because I’ve spent a proportion of my working life involved in public inquiries and regulatory processes where sometimes bizarre, self-justifying administrative actions are commonplace.

Unfortunately, I believe that such aspects of the film are fast becoming a reality in Britain.

From my recent discussions while touring around Britain, most people, it would appear, are not aware of what Government is doing to our justice system – and why that makes the events depicted in Brazil more ‘real’ than before.

To understand our justice system, go there

Most of you will probably not understand what I’m talking about – until, that is, you become unwittingly enmeshed in the court process.

Last Thursday I spent a second day waiting in Marylebone Central Magistrates’ Court – the result of a day spent pressing for action on an issue last March.

Looking around the waiting area, I was probably not like most of the people present. I wanted to be there! I wanted to defend my case.

Clearly though most of those waiting their turn on the court’s roster of cases did not like being there. And as I had prepared my case, what I found myself doing was spending time observing my fellow defendants rather than worrying about the details of my own situation.

Queuing to inform the clerk of my attendance just before 10am, the line of people before me were representative of the problems within our justice system:

Some had been there before. Perhaps a number of times. They appeared to treat the experience with a nonchalant acceptance – of a process that was being impersonally done to them, and over which they had little or no control.

Some had legal representation. But as I watched the briefs dash backwards and forwards that morning – trying to deal with cases which they had very little time to examine (some were taking initial instructions just before entering court) – it was clear that justice was under pressure.

And, as I listened-in to the hushed conversations around me, the clear emphasis of that pressure was to “plead guilty” if they wanted to exit this situation as quickly as possible.

Some have no representation. With trepidation, when asked for details by the clerk, they said the dreaded words, “I am representing myself.” In particular I’m thinking of one, apparently ordinary woman in the queue who looked almost moved to tears. When she was told she could see the duty solicitor for advice, her relief was palpable.

That said, under current Government reforms the number of duty solicitors is set to be cut by half.

Trial by ordeal

I cannot fault the calm and courteous court staff, nor the hard pressed solicitors bustling around the building. They’re trying their best to work within an imperfect system.

Increasingly though, and in a nod to the medieval roots of our modern justice system, for most ordinary people ‘the trial’ isn’t where a judge hears the facts. For those who do not have the means or ability to engage with this officious process, the whole legal process itself has become, once more, a ‘trial by ordeal‘.

Recently I have written for The Ecologist about the Government’s reforms to judicial review, and other parts of the general law – and how this will enable the Government to impose policy unchallenged.

Judicial review is of course, in terms of the number of all cases, a rare event in our legal process. Most everyday cases are summary offences – such as traffic offences. The fact that such cases are more numerous magnifies the impact of the recent ‘reforms’, as they involve many times more people that the reforms to judicial review.

The most significant are the changes to legal aid, which began with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As with the cuts to duty solicitors noted above, these changes strike at the heart of our basic rights to access the justice system.

One of the early impacts was the cut in funding for law centres, which gave free advice to the public. Many have been forced to close as a result.

The Government’s on-going project of legal aid reform will leave many with no choice but to turn up at the court and, unless they have the money for professional representation, throw themselves into that ordeal unaided.

Incentivizing the innocent to plead guilty

The most recent part of this long-standing Government strategy to reduce our participation in democracy has been the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. For me, this law enacts the most damaging of the reforms to date.

In the film Brazil, perhaps alluding to the real-world ‘bullet fee’ charges made by executioners, one of the unjust means of oppression depicted are the charges for “information retrieval”: those detained must pay for their torture. Prisoners are even sold loans and other financial services while in detention to cover the costs of those fees.

That’s not as far fetched as it seems. A few weeks ago John Oliver produced a brilliant exposé of America’s bail bond system – and how it disproportionately hits the poor, in effect creating a modern ‘debtors’ prison‘ system. US courts routinely set bail and other administration charges out of all proportion to a person’s income, and imprisons those who cannot pay.

Under the US justice system, pressure is put on people to plead guilty to crimes they have not committed. That is because the immediate financial and practical implications of pleading their innocence are far worse than the punishment for the crime. That pressure is exacerbated by a lack of timely and adequate legal advice.

And for those without means, but who have the courage to plead ‘not guilty’, that also leads to egregious miscarriages of justice. I believe that is where the British justice system is heading, unless we do something to stop it.

The ‘Criminal Courts Charge’ – justice costs, and you will pay

Under the reforms ushered in by section 54 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, in future, when a court hands down certain decisions, in addition to a fine you will now receive an administration bill – known as the Criminal Courts Charge.

The best way to think of this measure is as a ‘poll tax’ for the justice system.

Previously courts could impose costs orders as part of judgements – though the ability to pay was still assessed as part of that process. The new system gets rid of means assessments, and sets a fixed tariff for all cases irrespective of their specific complexity.

Rather like the American system, with its emphasis on cheaper plea bargains versus high-cost bail, this process is incentivized with significantly lower charges for those who immediately plead guilty.

These charges are set under the regulations enacted at the same time as the Act was commended in April 2015 – and are explained it the accompanying Department of Justice guidance. Currently the ‘Criminal Courts Charge’ is set as follows:

• £150 if you plead ‘guilty’ to a summary offence in a Magistrates’ Court;
• £180 if you plead ‘guilty’ to a more serious ‘either way’ offence in a Magistrates’ Court;
• £520 if you plead ‘not guilty’ to a summary offence in a Magistrates’ Court and lose the case;
• £900 if you plead ‘guilty’ to a serious offence in a Crown Court;
• £1,000 if you plead ‘not guilty’ to a more serious ‘either way’ offence in a Magistrate’s Court and lose the case;
• £1,200 if you plead ‘not guilty’ to a serious offence in a Crown Court and lose the case.

And if you try to appeal your conviction to a higher court, and lose, you’ll get another £150 bill on top of the above charges.

Ignoring the ability to pay – is that equality before the law?

The way the Government has introduced this legislation is also, like the US system, guaranteed to hit the poorest the hardest.

Few outside of the legal profession appear to know of this issue today – but it is almost certain to become a significant concern once its implications have worked through the criminal justice system in a few years time.

Currently the fines imposed by courts are means tested. When you go to court you fill out an official form with details of your income and outgoings. When the court imposes a fine, it assesses your liabilities and sets the fine accordingly.

This varying scale can be considered ‘just’ because, for a similar offence, and reflecting a person’s lifestyle and disposable income, everyone receives a fine which is set proportionately to their ability to pay.

Under the new system, the Criminal Courts Charge is not means tested – the poorest have to pay the same as the richest. Both the Law Society and the Magistrates’ Association have expressed a concern that the charge may encourage poorer defendants to plead guilty rather than risk the possibility of being convicted.

And in the age of the computer database, as is now becoming apparent in the USA, being pressured to plead guilty when you need not has consequences which can last a lifetime.

For those who cannot or will not pay, the Government will ‘attach’ their earnings, or benefits, through the tax system to recover the charge. This will pile-up further hardship for those on the lowest incomes when there is already concern about the impacts of the Government’s austerity benefit cuts.

With cuts to legal aid, and the funding for duty solicitors at police stations and courts, the pressure for those who cannot afford to contest a case will always be to plead guilty – irrespective of whether they are guilty of the offence or not.

Whether by design or not, we are on course to enact a system of justice every bit as unjust as the US system.

Putting a much higher price tag on ‘conscience’

At the Government’s behest, the courts are making it ever-more expensive to obtain justice. In effect, by introducing something akin to a ‘poll tax‘ for justice, they make it easier for the rich to escape their offences than it is for the poor to demonstrate their innocence.

This constitutes an administrative reversal of the traditional presumption of innocence. And by effectively forcing many poor defendants to please ‘guilty’ regardless of the facts of the case, it will afflict unknown thousands of people with undeserved criminal records and make it even harder for them to rise out of their poverty and exclusion.

In the case of deliberate acts of dissent, however, to conscientiously say ‘no’ to any Government enactment becomes more onerous for the individual. I say that as someone who has embarked on precisely that course of action. Even a minor wilful infraction of the law becomes an expensive undertaking for those who feel compelled to act out of conscience.

Today we have a divisive Government, with an agenda which was not supported by a majority of the electorate. Be it austerity, or energy policy, or reform to the legal system – never have such regressive, wide-ranging and controversial changes been enacted in modern political history.

On the specific point I am challenging, I believe that the law is on the public’s side – and that it is the Government who are breaking the law. But what I have discovered over the last two years, in pursuit of that case, is that there is a much more serious issue at stake here.

Through my past work with those who have experienced what it is to live in a repressive country, I believe that we should all be gravely concerned about the Government’s reforms to the justice system – and what they mean for our future well-being.

Who shall judge the courts themselves?

The true character of a democratic society, as Dostoyevsky stated, can be judged by entering its prisons. But what of the administrative processes before that? What does that tell us about the character of a nation?

What binds us together, more than a monarch or a ballot box, is a sense of shared justice; the belief that our safety and well-being lies within our allegiance to ‘our’ state, its values and its system of laws.

But what if the state becomes prejudiced, for overtly ideological reasons, against those traditions? Are we then necessarily called upon to defend those values through seeking to uphold them?

On that point, I believe we should all take note of the words of a significant figure within modern British political history, John Stuart Mill:

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

Seriously, if you want to gain a detailed understanding of this issue – perhaps to express your personal opposition to these changes – find yourself a worthy and constructive method to put yourself through this process.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article can be found on FRAW.’creaking and outdated’ 

Europe’s weather systems tend to cross the Atlantic and slam into Britain, which should make the UK ideal for wind power.

With very low running costs, cheap and easy integration into the grid in most of the country, and with wind being a mature industry that’s still evolving continuous improvements, how could it not be the country’s cheapest renewable?

Just look at the alternatives. There’s not that much hydro to be harnessed. Tide and wave power aren’t yet ready. Geothermal? This isn’t Iceland, not many volcanoes here. Straightforward, then? No, it never is.

The government has announced it is to end subsidies for onshore windfarms from April 2016, a year earlier than expected. When asked about the decision to withdraw support from a growing industry, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, claimed solar energy is just as cost-effective as onshore wind.

And that’s half-true: it has come down in price so far, so fast, that solar farms are bidding for deals as cheaply as some onshore wind farms. Then again, this government also prefers more costly rooftop installations to solar farms.

Anyway, solar and wind are complementary, not direct substitutes, with wind farms generally generating more power than solar in winter – and at night, of course, or under cloudy skies.

So why is onshore wind more expensive?

Onshore wind is often more expensive than it needs to be in this country. Sure, some onshore wind in Britain is not only the cheapest renewable there is, it’s the cheapest electricity we’ve got from any source, once insurance, pollution and all the other costs are factored in.

However quite a few planned UK onshore windfarms are more expensive than this. Bids to develop onshore wind came in at around £80 per MWh (8p per KWh) in the February 2015 round of CfD allocations, a bidding process meant to reveal the lowest available supply costs. That’s about the same price as some proposed solar parks.

Onshore wind is cheaper in other countries such as Germany (between €0.05 (3.6p) and €0.11 (7.9p) per kWh). That price premium for onshore wind in Britain seems to be back-to-front, given the UK’s powerful wind resource.

There are several compounding factors. Many years of policy uncertainty and persistent meddling with the revenue schemes presents higher risks to investors. Planning regulations in England and Wales have created further uncertainty, with unpredictable local decisions.

Often, rulings will be reversed on appeal, only for the energy secretary to step and reject the application. Investors, faced with higher risk, will require higher rewards.

Even more significantly, investors in wind farm supply chains can choose to locate instead in jurisdictions which offer far greater long-term clarity and security. This is why both Denmark and Germany have strong wind supply chains, and Britain’s is still nascent.

Not only does that mean new turbines typically have to be shipped to the UK from factories overseas, it adds currency risk, and means that less of the money invested stays within the country. So, by removing the policy uncertainties, it is within the government’s power to remove part of the need for onshore wind to be subsidised.

Does onshore wind need subsidy?

The chief assistance for onshore windfarm operators comes in the form of top-up payments from bill-payers, above what the operators receive from selling their electricity in the wholesale markets. The question is to what extent these are a subsidy at all.

Given the payment represents a transfer over and above the market price, it might seem surprising that this is even a question. But it has to be asked, due to a subtle process, known as the merit order effect.

An electricity grid tends to rank different generators in order of marginal cost, prioritising the cheapest forms of generation. This is the merit order. Cheap electricity is brought online first, and the plants with the highest marginal generation cost are saved till last.

The merit-order effect is the reduction in wholesale prices that comes about when more wind is generated. Wind is never the most expensive fuel on the grid, because its fuel is free. The cost of wind power is almost entirely in construction; marginal generation cost is next to nothing.

Therefore when the wind blows and power is generated, it knocks out the most expensive generator (and whether that’s coal or gas, depends on their relative prices, the carbon price, and the relative efficiency of the generators) and it lowers prices across the whole market.

Previous research in Germany and Spain has found that these cost reductions outweigh the revenue support paid to wind. Wind is not subsidised in those two countries – indeed, quite the reverse, wind lowers total costs for consumers. The thing that is called a subsidy, whether existing schemes or future ones, acts to correct a market failure.

Two simple things the government can do

First, it needs to figure out how much of these top-up payments merely reflect the merit order effect, simply levelling the playing field with regard to genuinely subsidised generators such as coal and gas. The rest is subsidy. But we can’t make true progress until we recognise this reality.

Second, government policy could give wind farm developers much greater long-term assurances of a supportive and consistent policy environment, thus lowering their risks and hence lowering costs.

Doing these will improve transparency, and reduce the cost of onshore wind further. It would give certainty to investors through decisiveness and leadership, and it would show that the government is taking a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to tackling climate change.

Andrew ZP Smith is Co-author of the Wind chapter in the forthcoming UKERC book ‘Global Energy’ (Oxford University Press), to be published in September 2015. He is the Academic Head of RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology at UCL.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Europe’s weather systems tend to cross the Atlantic and slam into Britain, which should make the UK ideal for wind power.

With very low running costs, cheap and easy integration into the grid in most of the country, and with wind being a mature industry that’s still evolving continuous improvements, how could it not be the country’s cheapest renewable?

Just look at the alternatives. There’s not that much hydro to be harnessed. Tide and wave power aren’t yet ready. Geothermal? This isn’t Iceland, not many volcanoes here. Straightforward, then? No, it never is.

The government has announced it is to end subsidies for onshore windfarms from April 2016, a year earlier than expected. When asked about the decision to withdraw support from a growing industry, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, claimed solar energy is just as cost-effective as onshore wind.

And that’s half-true: it has come down in price so far, so fast, that solar farms are bidding for deals as cheaply as some onshore wind farms. Then again, this government also prefers more costly rooftop installations to solar farms.

Anyway, solar and wind are complementary, not direct substitutes, with wind farms generally generating more power than solar in winter – and at night, of course, or under cloudy skies.

So why is onshore wind more expensive?

Onshore wind is often more expensive than it needs to be in this country. Sure, some onshore wind in Britain is not only the cheapest renewable there is, it’s the cheapest electricity we’ve got from any source, once insurance, pollution and all the other costs are factored in.

However quite a few planned UK onshore windfarms are more expensive than this. Bids to develop onshore wind came in at around £80 per MWh (8p per KWh) in the February 2015 round of CfD allocations, a bidding process meant to reveal the lowest available supply costs. That’s about the same price as some proposed solar parks.

Onshore wind is cheaper in other countries such as Germany (between €0.05 (3.6p) and €0.11 (7.9p) per kWh). That price premium for onshore wind in Britain seems to be back-to-front, given the UK’s powerful wind resource.

There are several compounding factors. Many years of policy uncertainty and persistent meddling with the revenue schemes presents higher risks to investors. Planning regulations in England and Wales have created further uncertainty, with unpredictable local decisions.

Often, rulings will be reversed on appeal, only for the energy secretary to step and reject the application. Investors, faced with higher risk, will require higher rewards.

Even more significantly, investors in wind farm supply chains can choose to locate instead in jurisdictions which offer far greater long-term clarity and security. This is why both Denmark and Germany have strong wind supply chains, and Britain’s is still nascent.

Not only does that mean new turbines typically have to be shipped to the UK from factories overseas, it adds currency risk, and means that less of the money invested stays within the country. So, by removing the policy uncertainties, it is within the government’s power to remove part of the need for onshore wind to be subsidised.

Does onshore wind need subsidy?

The chief assistance for onshore windfarm operators comes in the form of top-up payments from bill-payers, above what the operators receive from selling their electricity in the wholesale markets. The question is to what extent these are a subsidy at all.

Given the payment represents a transfer over and above the market price, it might seem surprising that this is even a question. But it has to be asked, due to a subtle process, known as the merit order effect.

An electricity grid tends to rank different generators in order of marginal cost, prioritising the cheapest forms of generation. This is the merit order. Cheap electricity is brought online first, and the plants with the highest marginal generation cost are saved till last.

The merit-order effect is the reduction in wholesale prices that comes about when more wind is generated. Wind is never the most expensive fuel on the grid, because its fuel is free. The cost of wind power is almost entirely in construction; marginal generation cost is next to nothing.

Therefore when the wind blows and power is generated, it knocks out the most expensive generator (and whether that’s coal or gas, depends on their relative prices, the carbon price, and the relative efficiency of the generators) and it lowers prices across the whole market.

Previous research in Germany and Spain has found that these cost reductions outweigh the revenue support paid to wind. Wind is not subsidised in those two countries – indeed, quite the reverse, wind lowers total costs for consumers. The thing that is called a subsidy, whether existing schemes or future ones, acts to correct a market failure.

Two simple things the government can do

First, it needs to figure out how much of these top-up payments merely reflect the merit order effect, simply levelling the playing field with regard to genuinely subsidised generators such as coal and gas. The rest is subsidy. But we can’t make true progress until we recognise this reality.

Second, government policy could give wind farm developers much greater long-term assurances of a supportive and consistent policy environment, thus lowering their risks and hence lowering costs.

Doing these will improve transparency, and reduce the cost of onshore wind further. It would give certainty to investors through decisiveness and leadership, and it would show that the government is taking a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to tackling climate change.

Andrew ZP Smith is Co-author of the Wind chapter in the forthcoming UKERC book ‘Global Energy’ (Oxford University Press), to be published in September 2015. He is the Academic Head of RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology at UCL.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Europe’s weather systems tend to cross the Atlantic and slam into Britain, which should make the UK ideal for wind power.

With very low running costs, cheap and easy integration into the grid in most of the country, and with wind being a mature industry that’s still evolving continuous improvements, how could it not be the country’s cheapest renewable?

Just look at the alternatives. There’s not that much hydro to be harnessed. Tide and wave power aren’t yet ready. Geothermal? This isn’t Iceland, not many volcanoes here. Straightforward, then? No, it never is.

The government has announced it is to end subsidies for onshore windfarms from April 2016, a year earlier than expected. When asked about the decision to withdraw support from a growing industry, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, claimed solar energy is just as cost-effective as onshore wind.

And that’s half-true: it has come down in price so far, so fast, that solar farms are bidding for deals as cheaply as some onshore wind farms. Then again, this government also prefers more costly rooftop installations to solar farms.

Anyway, solar and wind are complementary, not direct substitutes, with wind farms generally generating more power than solar in winter – and at night, of course, or under cloudy skies.

So why is onshore wind more expensive?

Onshore wind is often more expensive than it needs to be in this country. Sure, some onshore wind in Britain is not only the cheapest renewable there is, it’s the cheapest electricity we’ve got from any source, once insurance, pollution and all the other costs are factored in.

However quite a few planned UK onshore windfarms are more expensive than this. Bids to develop onshore wind came in at around £80 per MWh (8p per KWh) in the February 2015 round of CfD allocations, a bidding process meant to reveal the lowest available supply costs. That’s about the same price as some proposed solar parks.

Onshore wind is cheaper in other countries such as Germany (between €0.05 (3.6p) and €0.11 (7.9p) per kWh). That price premium for onshore wind in Britain seems to be back-to-front, given the UK’s powerful wind resource.

There are several compounding factors. Many years of policy uncertainty and persistent meddling with the revenue schemes presents higher risks to investors. Planning regulations in England and Wales have created further uncertainty, with unpredictable local decisions.

Often, rulings will be reversed on appeal, only for the energy secretary to step and reject the application. Investors, faced with higher risk, will require higher rewards.

Even more significantly, investors in wind farm supply chains can choose to locate instead in jurisdictions which offer far greater long-term clarity and security. This is why both Denmark and Germany have strong wind supply chains, and Britain’s is still nascent.

Not only does that mean new turbines typically have to be shipped to the UK from factories overseas, it adds currency risk, and means that less of the money invested stays within the country. So, by removing the policy uncertainties, it is within the government’s power to remove part of the need for onshore wind to be subsidised.

Does onshore wind need subsidy?

The chief assistance for onshore windfarm operators comes in the form of top-up payments from bill-payers, above what the operators receive from selling their electricity in the wholesale markets. The question is to what extent these are a subsidy at all.

Given the payment represents a transfer over and above the market price, it might seem surprising that this is even a question. But it has to be asked, due to a subtle process, known as the merit order effect.

An electricity grid tends to rank different generators in order of marginal cost, prioritising the cheapest forms of generation. This is the merit order. Cheap electricity is brought online first, and the plants with the highest marginal generation cost are saved till last.

The merit-order effect is the reduction in wholesale prices that comes about when more wind is generated. Wind is never the most expensive fuel on the grid, because its fuel is free. The cost of wind power is almost entirely in construction; marginal generation cost is next to nothing.

Therefore when the wind blows and power is generated, it knocks out the most expensive generator (and whether that’s coal or gas, depends on their relative prices, the carbon price, and the relative efficiency of the generators) and it lowers prices across the whole market.

Previous research in Germany and Spain has found that these cost reductions outweigh the revenue support paid to wind. Wind is not subsidised in those two countries – indeed, quite the reverse, wind lowers total costs for consumers. The thing that is called a subsidy, whether existing schemes or future ones, acts to correct a market failure.

Two simple things the government can do

First, it needs to figure out how much of these top-up payments merely reflect the merit order effect, simply levelling the playing field with regard to genuinely subsidised generators such as coal and gas. The rest is subsidy. But we can’t make true progress until we recognise this reality.

Second, government policy could give wind farm developers much greater long-term assurances of a supportive and consistent policy environment, thus lowering their risks and hence lowering costs.

Doing these will improve transparency, and reduce the cost of onshore wind further. It would give certainty to investors through decisiveness and leadership, and it would show that the government is taking a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to tackling climate change.

Andrew ZP Smith is Co-author of the Wind chapter in the forthcoming UKERC book ‘Global Energy’ (Oxford University Press), to be published in September 2015. He is the Academic Head of RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology at UCL.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Europe’s weather systems tend to cross the Atlantic and slam into Britain, which should make the UK ideal for wind power.

With very low running costs, cheap and easy integration into the grid in most of the country, and with wind being a mature industry that’s still evolving continuous improvements, how could it not be the country’s cheapest renewable?

Just look at the alternatives. There’s not that much hydro to be harnessed. Tide and wave power aren’t yet ready. Geothermal? This isn’t Iceland, not many volcanoes here. Straightforward, then? No, it never is.

The government has announced it is to end subsidies for onshore windfarms from April 2016, a year earlier than expected. When asked about the decision to withdraw support from a growing industry, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, claimed solar energy is just as cost-effective as onshore wind.

And that’s half-true: it has come down in price so far, so fast, that solar farms are bidding for deals as cheaply as some onshore wind farms. Then again, this government also prefers more costly rooftop installations to solar farms.

Anyway, solar and wind are complementary, not direct substitutes, with wind farms generally generating more power than solar in winter – and at night, of course, or under cloudy skies.

So why is onshore wind more expensive?

Onshore wind is often more expensive than it needs to be in this country. Sure, some onshore wind in Britain is not only the cheapest renewable there is, it’s the cheapest electricity we’ve got from any source, once insurance, pollution and all the other costs are factored in.

However quite a few planned UK onshore windfarms are more expensive than this. Bids to develop onshore wind came in at around £80 per MWh (8p per KWh) in the February 2015 round of CfD allocations, a bidding process meant to reveal the lowest available supply costs. That’s about the same price as some proposed solar parks.

Onshore wind is cheaper in other countries such as Germany (between €0.05 (3.6p) and €0.11 (7.9p) per kWh). That price premium for onshore wind in Britain seems to be back-to-front, given the UK’s powerful wind resource.

There are several compounding factors. Many years of policy uncertainty and persistent meddling with the revenue schemes presents higher risks to investors. Planning regulations in England and Wales have created further uncertainty, with unpredictable local decisions.

Often, rulings will be reversed on appeal, only for the energy secretary to step and reject the application. Investors, faced with higher risk, will require higher rewards.

Even more significantly, investors in wind farm supply chains can choose to locate instead in jurisdictions which offer far greater long-term clarity and security. This is why both Denmark and Germany have strong wind supply chains, and Britain’s is still nascent.

Not only does that mean new turbines typically have to be shipped to the UK from factories overseas, it adds currency risk, and means that less of the money invested stays within the country. So, by removing the policy uncertainties, it is within the government’s power to remove part of the need for onshore wind to be subsidised.

Does onshore wind need subsidy?

The chief assistance for onshore windfarm operators comes in the form of top-up payments from bill-payers, above what the operators receive from selling their electricity in the wholesale markets. The question is to what extent these are a subsidy at all.

Given the payment represents a transfer over and above the market price, it might seem surprising that this is even a question. But it has to be asked, due to a subtle process, known as the merit order effect.

An electricity grid tends to rank different generators in order of marginal cost, prioritising the cheapest forms of generation. This is the merit order. Cheap electricity is brought online first, and the plants with the highest marginal generation cost are saved till last.

The merit-order effect is the reduction in wholesale prices that comes about when more wind is generated. Wind is never the most expensive fuel on the grid, because its fuel is free. The cost of wind power is almost entirely in construction; marginal generation cost is next to nothing.

Therefore when the wind blows and power is generated, it knocks out the most expensive generator (and whether that’s coal or gas, depends on their relative prices, the carbon price, and the relative efficiency of the generators) and it lowers prices across the whole market.

Previous research in Germany and Spain has found that these cost reductions outweigh the revenue support paid to wind. Wind is not subsidised in those two countries – indeed, quite the reverse, wind lowers total costs for consumers. The thing that is called a subsidy, whether existing schemes or future ones, acts to correct a market failure.

Two simple things the government can do

First, it needs to figure out how much of these top-up payments merely reflect the merit order effect, simply levelling the playing field with regard to genuinely subsidised generators such as coal and gas. The rest is subsidy. But we can’t make true progress until we recognise this reality.

Second, government policy could give wind farm developers much greater long-term assurances of a supportive and consistent policy environment, thus lowering their risks and hence lowering costs.

Doing these will improve transparency, and reduce the cost of onshore wind further. It would give certainty to investors through decisiveness and leadership, and it would show that the government is taking a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to tackling climate change.

Andrew ZP Smith is Co-author of the Wind chapter in the forthcoming UKERC book ‘Global Energy’ (Oxford University Press), to be published in September 2015. He is the Academic Head of RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology at UCL.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Europe’s weather systems tend to cross the Atlantic and slam into Britain, which should make the UK ideal for wind power.

With very low running costs, cheap and easy integration into the grid in most of the country, and with wind being a mature industry that’s still evolving continuous improvements, how could it not be the country’s cheapest renewable?

Just look at the alternatives. There’s not that much hydro to be harnessed. Tide and wave power aren’t yet ready. Geothermal? This isn’t Iceland, not many volcanoes here. Straightforward, then? No, it never is.

The government has announced it is to end subsidies for onshore windfarms from April 2016, a year earlier than expected. When asked about the decision to withdraw support from a growing industry, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, claimed solar energy is just as cost-effective as onshore wind.

And that’s half-true: it has come down in price so far, so fast, that solar farms are bidding for deals as cheaply as some onshore wind farms. Then again, this government also prefers more costly rooftop installations to solar farms.

Anyway, solar and wind are complementary, not direct substitutes, with wind farms generally generating more power than solar in winter – and at night, of course, or under cloudy skies.

So why is onshore wind more expensive?

Onshore wind is often more expensive than it needs to be in this country. Sure, some onshore wind in Britain is not only the cheapest renewable there is, it’s the cheapest electricity we’ve got from any source, once insurance, pollution and all the other costs are factored in.

However quite a few planned UK onshore windfarms are more expensive than this. Bids to develop onshore wind came in at around £80 per MWh (8p per KWh) in the February 2015 round of CfD allocations, a bidding process meant to reveal the lowest available supply costs. That’s about the same price as some proposed solar parks.

Onshore wind is cheaper in other countries such as Germany (between €0.05 (3.6p) and €0.11 (7.9p) per kWh). That price premium for onshore wind in Britain seems to be back-to-front, given the UK’s powerful wind resource.

There are several compounding factors. Many years of policy uncertainty and persistent meddling with the revenue schemes presents higher risks to investors. Planning regulations in England and Wales have created further uncertainty, with unpredictable local decisions.

Often, rulings will be reversed on appeal, only for the energy secretary to step and reject the application. Investors, faced with higher risk, will require higher rewards.

Even more significantly, investors in wind farm supply chains can choose to locate instead in jurisdictions which offer far greater long-term clarity and security. This is why both Denmark and Germany have strong wind supply chains, and Britain’s is still nascent.

Not only does that mean new turbines typically have to be shipped to the UK from factories overseas, it adds currency risk, and means that less of the money invested stays within the country. So, by removing the policy uncertainties, it is within the government’s power to remove part of the need for onshore wind to be subsidised.

Does onshore wind need subsidy?

The chief assistance for onshore windfarm operators comes in the form of top-up payments from bill-payers, above what the operators receive from selling their electricity in the wholesale markets. The question is to what extent these are a subsidy at all.

Given the payment represents a transfer over and above the market price, it might seem surprising that this is even a question. But it has to be asked, due to a subtle process, known as the merit order effect.

An electricity grid tends to rank different generators in order of marginal cost, prioritising the cheapest forms of generation. This is the merit order. Cheap electricity is brought online first, and the plants with the highest marginal generation cost are saved till last.

The merit-order effect is the reduction in wholesale prices that comes about when more wind is generated. Wind is never the most expensive fuel on the grid, because its fuel is free. The cost of wind power is almost entirely in construction; marginal generation cost is next to nothing.

Therefore when the wind blows and power is generated, it knocks out the most expensive generator (and whether that’s coal or gas, depends on their relative prices, the carbon price, and the relative efficiency of the generators) and it lowers prices across the whole market.

Previous research in Germany and Spain has found that these cost reductions outweigh the revenue support paid to wind. Wind is not subsidised in those two countries – indeed, quite the reverse, wind lowers total costs for consumers. The thing that is called a subsidy, whether existing schemes or future ones, acts to correct a market failure.

Two simple things the government can do

First, it needs to figure out how much of these top-up payments merely reflect the merit order effect, simply levelling the playing field with regard to genuinely subsidised generators such as coal and gas. The rest is subsidy. But we can’t make true progress until we recognise this reality.

Second, government policy could give wind farm developers much greater long-term assurances of a supportive and consistent policy environment, thus lowering their risks and hence lowering costs.

Doing these will improve transparency, and reduce the cost of onshore wind further. It would give certainty to investors through decisiveness and leadership, and it would show that the government is taking a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to tackling climate change.

Andrew ZP Smith is Co-author of the Wind chapter in the forthcoming UKERC book ‘Global Energy’ (Oxford University Press), to be published in September 2015. He is the Academic Head of RCUK Centre for Energy Epidemiology at UCL.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

In a victory for green campaigners the UK’s transparency watchdog has ruled that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) must release an un-redacted version of its Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts report.

The heavily redacted fracking report was released last summer after a Freedom of Information request by Request Initiative on behalf of Greenpeace. The report was blanked out 63 times within 13 pages, including a whole section on the impact of fracking on house prices.

Greenpeace appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office in March to force the department to release the report in full arguing that “a sensible sustainable way forward is required and all information needs to be released to ensure transparency and good choice of solutions for our energy needs going forward.”

In refusing requests for the report’s release both Defra and the Department for Energy and Climate Change (CECC) – which have claimed the report should never have been produced in the first place – have argued that there was a “strong public interest in withholding the information” as it could “mislead and distort the public debate on shale gas.”

But as the ICO ruling states: “The Commissioner gives limited weight to the argument that the information at issue is misleading and/or confusing. In particular, he considers that DEFRA’s submissions fail to specify why it is unable to provide a statement accompanying disclosure that explains that the information may be inaccurate or misleading and why.”

Given the “novel and environmentally invasive nature of fracking” the ICO concludes that “there is a strong public interest in understanding the full detail of the research that has been carried out and how it has been considered.”

Lancashire fracking decision – meeting begins tomorrow

Greenpeace had argued that an un-redacted version should be released before a critical vote by Lancashire authorities on whether or not to grant fracking firm Cuadrilla planning permission for two sites in the area. Louise Hutchins, a Greenpeace UK energy campaigner, said:

“Authorities in Lancashire and elsewhere in the country are about to make crucial decisions on whether to allow this controversial industry in their area. They should be given access to all the available evidence, not have it cherry-picked for them by the government.”

The decision is due to be made in a meeting that begins tomorrow, Tuesday 23rd June, and is expected to last for several days. Last week planning officers advised councillors to accept the application to frack at Preston New Road, Little Plumpton, but deny the application for a second site at Roseacre Wood.

They had previously recommended refusal for the Preston New Road site due to concerns over noise, but now they believe those fears can be overcome provided that conditions are met on times of operation, hours of working and highway matters. However the increase in HGV traffic as Roseacre Wood would result in “an unacceptable impact” on rural roads.

It now appears very unlikely that councillors will have sight of the full report before reaching their decision, as Defra’s deadline for release only comes in mid-July.

But now that the release of the full report has been ordered, councillors may decide to delay their planning decisions until that takes place: in February Lancashire County Council called for an un-redacted copy of the report to be released, arguing a decision could only come from having access to the full report.

The controversy that’s not going away

The shale gas report has gained considerable attention since it was first released, with MPs calling for its release. Labour MP Alan Whitehead, for example, urged the government in January to end any notion that it was hiding information, stating:

“It is imperative that the report is published in full in order for a proper debate to take place and to dispel the enormous cloud of suspicion that will hang over any further attempts to keep parts of it secret.”

Prime Minister David Cameron has also ducked questions about the report’s release on more than one occasion – taking his own 2011 promise of a “complete revolution in transparency“ in vain. “Information is power”, he said. “It lets people hold the powerful to account, giving them the tools they need to take on politicians and bureaucrats.”

As regards the impact of fracking on house prices, there is already abundant evidence that the large scale industrial operations associated with fracking, and even the prospect of such operations taking place in the future, do indeed depress house prices in the affected areas.

Lancashire County Council has just received a letter from 850 elected officials in New York State, USA, warning of the hazards of fracking to health and communities. Martha Robertson, Tompkins County Legislator, told BBC News:

“After studying the public health impacts of fracking for years, New York State Health Commissioner Dr Zucker was clear that he would not let his family live in a community with fracking. It is possible to stand up to this dirty and dangerous industry and ensure residents’ safety.”

Kyla Mandel is Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK. She tweets @kylamandel.

This article was originally published by DeSmog.uk. This version includes additional reporting by The Ecologist.

The League Against Cruel Sports’ discovery of 16 fox cubs held captive in a barn located just 200 metres from the Middleton Foxhound’s kennels is big news.

That’s not so much because it involves a high profile hunt whose members have multiple convictions for illegal hunting – although that’s true.

It’s rather that it sheds light on the widespread practice of ‘fox farming’ apparently associated with hunting – undermining the hunting lobby’s last line of defence, that they provide an essential wildlife management service.

It also casts doubt on the idea that foxes are only killed accidentally in the course of perfectly legal drag hunting, and suggests that police should investigate possible breaches of the Hunting Act 2004.

The evidence in this case firmly disputes the Middleton Hunt’s conflicting claims that the fox cubs were nothing to do with them. We filmed their terrier man, an employee of the hunt whose registered address is the hunt’s kennels, going into the shed.

The Hunt also claimed that the foxes were being looking after by the hunt for their welfare. DNA analysis carried out by the police revealed the cubs were from four separate litters. The prospect of the hunt being called upon to care for any orphaned fox cubs, let alone 16 cubs from four separate litters, is laughingly absurd.

Capturing foxes to be hunted is widespread

In just the last 15 months, the League’s Wildlife Crimewatch hotline has received information about 20 different hunts capturing foxes to be hunted. It was one such tip off that led to the discovery of those 16 cubs. While the scale of the fox ‘factory’ discovered in that barn is shocking, it is not the first time hunts have been caught with captive foxes.

In 2012, an employee of the Fitzwilliam Hunt was convicted under the Animal Welfare Act for holding a pregnant vixen captive in appalling conditions. During the height of the campaign for a ban on hunting, both the Sinnington Hunt and Cottesmore Hunt were caught keeping fox cubs captive for hunting.

According to Clifford Pellow, a kennelman and huntsman for 23 years and now retired, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg:

“I’ve worked with many hunts across the country and seen foxes kept in milk churns, cages and sheds and encouraged to breed in artificial earths so there’s a ready supply to be hunted. I’ve even seen a fox deliberately strung up in a tree to send the hounds into a frenzy, so it’s no surprise to me this cruelty carries on.

“Though hunts insist they are there to provide a wildlife control service, the fact they break the Master of Foxhounds Association rules over and over again shows that this just isn’t the case. They’re still in it purely for the blood ‘sport’, with a nasty, cruel streak and no respect for the law.

“The hunting world’s last possible justification for repealing the Hunting Act has been well and truly blown out of the water.”

Encouraging foxes with artificial earths and feeding

Pre and post ban, anti-hunt campaigners have witnessed and recorded evidence of hunts building homes and providing food for wild foxes, all to ensure a ready supply of animals to be hunted.

In 2011, six years after the hunting ban came into force, a League Against Cruel Sports investigation found that the use of artificial earths – man-made structures designed to mimic fox earths, usually made out of drain pipes or concrete blocks and designed provide a place for foxes to breed and shelter – was widespread.

Evidence of structure maintenance and supplementary feeding of foxes was recorded at sites in 14 counties, on land used by 21 hunts. In November 2014, ITV broadcast footage of the North Cotswold Hunt dumping dozens of dead chickens, rabbits and eggs at an artificial fox earth over a period of several weeks, and then hunting in the same area, made national headlines.

In May 2015 we received footage of dead chickens being dumped outside an artificial fox earth where the Pytchley Hunt had been filmed hunting just months before.

Lest you think these are just a few bad apples, the 10th Duke of Beaufort confirms the prevalence of artificial earths in his 1998 book Fox Hunting:

“In countries where earths are scarce it is sometimes found necessary to make artificial earths, to provide somewhere for local foxes to have their cubs; in other words, for breeding purposes. An additional advantage is that if an artificial earth is left open, it will only take a few minutes to bolt a fox. Also if it is a blank day, one knows where to go with some certainty of finding a fox.”

Why would hunts encourage or rear foxes?

For all the pro-hunt lobby’s claims of fox control and wildlife management, hunting is really about prestige. Ensuring that foxes are killed when esteemed guests ride with the hunt, and on important days such as the final meet of the year, is important for the hunt’s reputation.

Providing food and shelter for wild foxes means the hunt will always know where to find them on hunting day. And of course, when the hounds come across foxes during the course of an apparently legal drag hunt, the resulting fox kill can be put down as an unfortunate accident.

Rearing fox cubs in captivity could serve several purposes. Some may be released during ‘cub hunting’ season in early autumn when young hounds are taught how to track and kill by chasing fox cubs. Others may be released at artificial fox earths dotted throughout the terrain, thus providing ‘quarry’ for the upcoming hunting season.

In some cases the purpose could be even more disturbing. For several years our Wildlife Crimewatch line has received reports of a trade in foxes, with hunts in areas with healthy fox populations providing foxes for those in areas where the animal is scarce. While technically this is wildlife management, it’s not the ‘natural’ kind that hunts claim to provide.

No justification for a return to hunting

All of this evidence demonstrates what anti-hunt campaigners have known for decades; hunting has absolutely nothing to do with fox control or wildlife management – and it certainly isn’t natural.

Fox cubs belong with their parents and adults should have to forage for food, not have it delivered to their doorstep. The truth is that hunting is simply a cruel sport without any justification.

We urge all MPs to stand against this cruel and unnatural treatment of wild animals and vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports is currently offering people the chance to contact their MP about the Hunting Act. Take the simple League Against Cruel Sports action.

Dr Toni Shephard is Head of Policy and Research at the League Against Cruel Sports.

To find out why foxes don’t actually need to be ‘controlled’, go to the League Against Cruel Sports Foxycology page.

A US government department hid its concerns about Shell’s test of its containment dome system, which would be deployed if there was an oil well blowout.

Earlier this year, the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said that the March 2015 test of the dome in the waters of Puget Sound, off the Washington coast, was “successful“.

But a letter obtained by Freedom of Information request reveals that BSEE had several concerns about safety issues that arose during the test. Shell hadn’t disclosed the incidents either.

This comes as US government regulators are now considering Shell’s specific plans for boring two exploratory oil wells in the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska.

This week Shell already gained a permit to disturb Arctic mammals, though not to harm them. It also managed to extricate its Polar Pioneer drilling rig from Seattle escaping Kayaktivists trying to stop it.

The ‘containment dome’, which is effectively meant to to put a lid on any leaks, is carried on – and deployed from – the Arctic Challenger barge. It’s a key piece of safety equipment: BP had issues deploying containment domes at the Deepwater Horizon spill site after the blowout in 2010 – and we all know how that ended up.

‘Crushed like a beer can’

Shell didn’t officially need to test its containment dome as it had already been certified. But it may have undertaken the exercise to inspire confidence in its operations after its previous containment dome tests in 2012 ended up with the gear malfunctioning and being “crushed like a beer can” by pressure after sinking 120 feet (shown above).

BSEE’s regional director for Alaska, Mark Fesmire wrote to Shell on 16 April to state his concerns about the test of the equipment. His main issue was that the anchor of a tugboat – which was anchored near the Challenger – dragged until it was “abreast of the starboard side of the Arctic Challenger”. The boat had to be pushed back into position “against wind and seas” by two small workboats, Fesmire states.

He was also concerned at the inability to establish radio contact with the tugboat, named the Corbin Foss, “in the early part of the Corbin Foss’ traverse while dragging anchor” – highlighting “an operational or technical deficiency which must be addressed.”

Fesmire also underlined concerns about what procedures would be followed if the Challenger was operating in conditions with gas plumes and the wind carries gas towards the vessel, and for staff operating in hazardous conditions during the deployment of the dome.

The Challenger also had a small 24-gallon oil spill in 2013 during another round of containment dome testing. The hydraulic oil spill occurred when a hose on the containment dome was broken by a remote-operated vehicle around 600 feet under water.

Worst case accident: 25,000 barrels a day for 30 days

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over 77 years – the period of oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea – according to the latest environmental impact report. Shell’s own worst case scenario for a spill in the sensitive environment off the coast of Alaska would see 25,000 barrels per day released for 30 days.

It is not certain what proportion of any spill Shell would recover, as this is not clear in its spill response plan, which has been approved by regulators. A study commissioned by the US government suggests the harsh conditions in the Arctic would severely restrict the ability to respond to an oil spill in the region.

Recently the capping stack, another part of the system to contain a spill, was also tested – though it also had its certification.

The containment dome will be stationed at Kotzebue, Alaska, which Shell says is eight days journey from the drill site – a day further than required by proposed Arctic drilling standards.

Shell’s mooring of vessels at Kotzebue Sound also “conflicts with indigenous open water subsistence use areas and important habitat for subsistence species”, a US government employee wrote in an email also obtained by FOI.

Shell has not responded to Energydesk’s requests for comment. Again.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk. Additional reporting / editing by The Ecologist.

More information

• Factcheck: How to clean up an Arctic oil spill in four steps (and why it is unlikely to work)
• Comment: A history of screw-ups – and its own plans – raise doubts about the ability of Shell to safely drill in the Arctic
• Interview: ‘There is no way they could ever clean it’ say Indigenous leaders on Arctic oil spill

In the latest development of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia, a strategy of reorganising and strengthening US military capabilities in the Pacific, the islanders of Pagan and Tinian are being told to make way for a “simulated war zone“.

After decades of living at the behest of American military priorities, they are still resisting moves to encroach on their homelands – and their chances of success are as slim as ever.

Both islands are part of the US-associated Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Their strategic location, midway between the US Pacific Fleet headquarters in Hawaii and the Asian mainland, with further logistical support available at the naval facilities in nearby Guam, make them attractive locations for the US military’s purposes.

Tinian also has a prime place in geo-strategic history: it is home to the airfield from which the Enola Gay took off to carry out the bombing of Hiroshima, marking the dawn of the nuclear era.

The provisional plans for these islands so far released by the Pentagon suggest that they have been earmarked for amphibious landing training, live ammunition manoeuvres, bombings and heavy artillery target practice.

The islanders’ appeal to stop their displacement is only the lastest in a long line of disputes. Small Pacific island communities have faced a long history of disruption and displacement thanks to the machinations of distant ‘great powers’.

Out of the way

At the start of the 20th century, islanders in Micronesia were relocated to provide a workforce for phosphate mining operations, such as those on Nauru and Banaba. It was not until the Japanese arrived as part of the post-World War I League of Nations mandate system that Micronesian islands started to be fortified – a direct contradiction of the mandate’s terms.

More islanders were displaced under Japanese rule, and then as a result of the Allies’ invasion during World War II. After Japan was defeated, the US took control of these islands as the United Nations’ Strategic Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

Also in the Pacific, the residents of Bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands were notoriously relocated in 1946 to make way for the US nuclear testing programme.

Although the islanders were initially told that this would be a temporary measure, there has been no seriously implemented return and resettlement programme, despite much lobbying by the Bikini islanders and their international supporters.

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.

Similarly, the Chagossians of Diego Garcia have fought a lengthy legal battle with the UK government ever since they were forced to make way for the US military to use of their land, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, without the inconvenience of local residents.

The UK Chagos Support Association has recently made the most of publicity surrounding the 800-year anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta by referring to clause 39, which states that no free man should be exiled “except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

But of course, the principle of equal treatment before the law is often stretched when sticking to it would conflict with ‘higher order’ strategic interests.

Who gives a damn?

Although he subsequently denied it, the former National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, has been repeatedly quoted as responding to a question about the fate of Marshall Islanders affected by the US nuclear test programme with the words:

“There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?”

Whether or not he actually used those words, they are a perfect distillation of the sentiments that have governed US policy in these islands. Whenever these populations’ hopes, dreams and wishes run counter to great powers’ interests they are dismissed and displaced – especially when military might is at stake.

That said, some aspects of the world have changed beyond all recognition since the late 1960s, and the islanders have new means to make themselves heard. Today, a great many people not only give a damn, but can also connect with each other and organise to take action.

An online petition calling for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian has already received more than 100,000 signatures.

This campaign platform was simply not available to the Bikini islanders immediately after World War II. It was not until US Peace Corps volunteers visited the Marshall Islanders in the 1960s that some of them began to lobby the US on behalf of the islanders.

But given the history, it seems unlikely that the protests of a relatively small community of islanders can defy US geo-strategy and all the logistical and financial commitments it entails. However much the world has changed since the 1960s, Henry Kissinger’s apocryphal words are still all too apt.

Roy Smith is Principal Lecturer, History, Languages and International Studies at Nottingham Trent University.

Petition: Call for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.