Greens – in the European Parliament and elsewhere – have made the argument for a coherent, long-term policy on investment in resource efficient, low-emission sectors and the need for workforce engagement.

But it’s not easy. Especially when governments seem intent on promoting fossil fuels, sending mixed messages about what they are trying to achieve, or even launching direct attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Take, for example, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s recent decision to scrap the Green Deal, which came shortly after their post election abolition of the the Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.

If truth be known, the Green Deal wasn’t much of a deal and it wasn’t particularly green, being expensive, bureaucratic and inflexible. The real problem is they haven’t replaced it with something better, even though the government claims it wants to save energy.

We know that fuel poverty exists and that we need jobs. We have the potential here in the UK and across Europe to create millions of new jobs in making homes energy-efficient. Why the Government doesn’t recognise this potential and joint the dots is mystifying.

But this battle is worth fighting. Over the next decade, direct and indirect employment in the wind, wave and tidal energy sectors alone could grow to some 3 million jobs in the EU. The transition is already in motion. But will the UK be part of it?

It’s up to us to make sure it will be just, and that green jobs will be decent, and fairly paid, as set out by the combined work of UNEP, the ILO and the ITUC. And moreover that the jobs will be in the UK as well as other European countries.

So what is a ‘green job’?

It could be a solar power engineer or landscape gardener, an organic farmer or a street cleaner, an insulation installer or a cycle repairer. One definition is any decent job that contributes to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment: whether it is in agriculture, industry, services or administration.

What is fundamental is that it should result in work that is fairly paid, and with good working conditions. The green agenda has an intrinsic and unbreakable link to jobs, skills, and the economy: we have to ensure the reality matches the ambition.

In the European Parliament, some political groups struggled to connect the idea of decent work with the expansion of the environmental sector. These concepts can work in tandem though, in fact they must. This is why a major piece of work for me in the last few months has been authoring a report on green jobs – ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘ – for the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of which I’m a member.

It was partly to ensure that all the work done by the previous Commission on the issue was not thrown away by the new lot, with its desire for so-called ‘better regulation’ which seems to mean putting ‘growth’ first.

I’m pleased to say that the European Parliament recently voted to adopt the report with a large majority in the last plenary session before recess, with its remit to find ways to tap into the job creation potential of the green economy. It follows on from last year’s European Commission proposals on green employment as part of the EU’s Europe 2020 objectives.

The Commission’s original package recognised the potential for significant green employment creation, but what it lacked were clear proposals about how this would actually happen. Blanks needed to be filled in by proposing clear steps towards the sustainable transformation of our economy and the creation of quality, long-term jobs.

Clear targets, efective regulations

However, the keys to actually delivering this change lie in two key areas: investment and innovation. This must mean a strong and stable regulatory framework, with ambitious and binding 2030 EU targets on energy saving, resource efficiency and renewable energy.

The report highlights that implementing existing EU energy efficiency and savings measures could create up to 2 million new jobs, with the potential for a further 3 million in the renewables sector.

A clear policy framework could also allow stakeholders some degree of predictability in training or investment decisions, thereby encouraging investment in renewables and resource efficiency. This could then boost jobs in, for example, rural and former industrial areas.

This last part is incredibly important: some rural and post-industrial areas are suffering and people whose families have been in areas for generations are leaving because there is just no work. While globalisation can pose a threat to job security in the industrial sector, many green jobs are likely to be non-re-locatable and in areas of work which cannot be offshored. This is more than potential, it is there for the taking.

Small and medium-sized businesses are one of the most important generators of employment in the EU, they account for more than 80 % of all jobs and have led the way in many ‘green’ sectors. But they may face particular difficulties in anticipating the skills needed and in thus fulfilling the job potential.

We have picked up an excellent project from the NUS, placing unemployed graduates with expertise in sustainability into small companies to provide help and gain experience: we are now trying to get support for this as an EU pilot project. It is though a fact that some sectors will undergo considerable change, and that may mean decline.

Managing that change will be more positive if effective support mechanisms are in place, including retraining and possible change of production.

A further source of green employment will be the circular economy (the antidote to the ‘take-make-dispose’ linear economy) – an initiative scrapped by the incoming Commission in January. My report calls on the European Commission to honour its commitment to make a new proposal on EU waste legislation by the end of 2015.

Hopefully, the Commission public consultation will garner a lot of support for an ambitious package. Green jobs could also be created by shifting the tax burden from employment to environmental costs, if we can ensure that the effect is not regressive.

Likewise, ending the counterproductive subsidies which support polluting or carbon intensive sectors should be a priority.

Wasted potential of lose-lose politics

With the green transition’s success also dependent on how well existing businesses adapt to new circumstances, another key demand is for effective support and retraining measures to increase workforce engagement. Efficient use of EU funds could play a part here.

Finally, the report also puts forward the idea of ‘green representatives’ in trades unions who could work together with employers to green the workplace and indirectly the economy in general: this also draws on experience from the UK.

Unrealised potential is waste. If the EU wants to grasp the possibility of millions of new jobs, that offer a hope of a better future in so many ways, policy has to be consistent and investment and training priorities need to follow.

We should learn from the Green Deal experience: stop-go policy initiatives undermine public confidence, throw people out of work just as new sectors are developing and fail to achieve the necessary transition towards a resource efficient, renewable energy future. This is lose-lose politics, when we need the exact opposite in our thinking.

The report: ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘.

Jean Lambert has been London’s Green Party Member of the European Parliament, since 1999. She sits on the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL), where her work includes a focus on social inclusion, workers’ rights, immigration and social security, and is a member of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE). Jean is on the Council of the civil liberties organisation Liberty. She is Immigration spokesperson for the Green Party of England and Wales.

A British company has announced plans for an array of unique marine turbines that can operate in shallower and slower-moving water than current designs.

Kepler Energy, whose technology is being developed by Oxford University’s department of engineering science, says the turbines will in time produce electricity more cheaply than off-shore wind farms.

It hopes to install its new design in what is called a tidal energy fence, one kilometre long, in the Bristol Channel – an estuary dividing South Wales from the west of England – at a cost of £143m (US$222m).

The fence is a string of linked turbines, each of which will start generating electricity as it is completed, until the whole array is producing power. The fence’s total output is 30 megawatts (MW). Each MW can supply around 1,000 homes in the UK.

Peter Dixon, Kepler’s chairman, told Reuters news agency: “If we can build up to, say, 10 kilometres’ worth, which is a very extended fence, you’re looking at power outputs of five or six hundred megawatts. And just to visualise that, it’s like one small nuclear reactor’s worth of electricity being generated from the tides in the Bristol Channel.”

Suitable for shallow water, fish-friendly

The new Transverse Horizontal Axis Water Turbine (THAWT) will use the latest carbon composite technology, and should be suitable for the waters around Britain, as well as overseas.

What’s new about the design is that the blades need no enveloping supporting structure. “This leads to lower parasitic drag, and hence low power losses and simple, cheap construction with longer rotors across the flow”, says the company.

“This is in contrast to all other transverse horizontal axis turbines on the market, which are limited in their power output by their lack of structural rigidity and consequent limited maximum size.”

The basic generating unit comprises two turbines with a central direct drive generator, with only four supporting bearings and three foundation supports required. “As a consequence of this design, the weight of the unit will be significantly lower than that achievable by propeller type units”, Kepler claims.

“The simplicity of the design – only one rotating unit, with no yaw mechanism, no complex pitch changing mechanisms and with electrical equipment in a dry column – means that the Kepler turbine arrays will have very significantly lower life-cycle costs than those of first generation machines.”

Video: THAWT scale model undergoing testing.

The turbine is scalable to suit different sites.  A typical rotor would be 10m diameter and 60m long sited in a tidal flow with a mean depth of 20m. Tests indicate that the basic 10m diameter, 120m long unit with two turbines should generate more than 4.4 MW at a water velocity of 2m/s, and more than 5.2 MW at a water velocity of 2.5m/s. In addition, the unit will operate with reasonable efficiency at low water velocities.

Because the turbines sit horizontally beneath the surface of the sea, they can be sited in water shallower than the 30-metre depth typically required by current designs. And because the water is slow-moving, the company says, fish can safely avoid the turbines’ blades.

Although the technology is regarded as environmentally benign, Kepler says it will still undergo a rigorous environmental impact assessment during the planning process to ensure that it poses no significant risk to marine life and to other users of the sea.

And unlike wind power, the power output from each installation will be completely predictable long in advance based on the movement of the tides. It will also be possible to site tidal power farms at different sites around the UK and other coastlines to provide a smooth power output, increasing the value of the energy produced.

New wind projects win planning permission – but as yet, no money

There is more good news for proponents of renewable energy after the UK government – which is no longer encouraging onshore wind and solar energy – gave planning consent for a large offshore wind farm that could provide power for up to two million homes.

The new wind farm is to be built near the Dogger Bank in the North Sea and will have 400 turbines. Its developers, Forewind, say it could create almost 5,000 jobs during construction. However it may not go ahead owing to severe cuts in funding for renewable energy including offshore wind, believed to be driven by the UK Chancellor, George Osborne.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Bourne was bullish about the scheme, however: “Thanks to Government support the UK is the world leader in offshore wind energy. As we build the Northern Powerhouse, we want local communities to reap the benefits of investment and green jobs from low carbon developments like Dogger Bank Offshore wind project.”

Earlier this year, Forewind – a consortium comprising SSE, RWE, Statkraft and Statoil – also obtained planning consent for another installation nearby which, with the new development, would form one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world.

But North Sea oil and gas isn’t over yet

But the fossil fuel industry is far from abandoning its own interest in British waters as the energy giant BP has announced that it is to invest about £670m (US$1,040m) to extend the life of its North Sea assets.

It said it would be drilling new wells, replacing undersea infrastructure, and introducing new technologies to help it to produce as much as possible from the area, whose future would be secured “until 2030 and beyond.”

In his recent budget, George Osborne announced new tax breaks to encourage the complete recovery of North Sea oil and gas. This is also a legal requirement under the Infrastructure Act 2015, passed by the previous coalition government.

In November, however, delegates to the UN Climate Change Convention annual negotiations will gather in Paris to try to conclude an ambitious and effective agreement on preventing the global average temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions exceeding 2˚C above its pre-industrial level.

Last year, the Convention’s executive secretary, Christiana Figueres, said the world’s long-term goal was to reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2100 – a target she said would require leaving three-quarters of fossil fuels in the ground. “We just can’t afford to burn them”, she said.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Farmers will not be allowed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops in Scotland, Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead announced over the weekend.

The Scottish Government intends to take advantage of new EU rules allowing countries to opt out of growing EU-authorised GM crops, he said, in effect making Scotland’s long-standing and widely supported moratorium on GMOS permanent.

“Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment – and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status”, he said.

“There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector.”

The Scottish Government will shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including the variety of genetically modified maize already approved and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation.

The risks outweigh any potential benefits

The move has been welcomed by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which represents the nation’s small-scale farmers, together with other civil society organisations who penned an open letter of support to the Scottish government:

“We underline the precautionary principle that the Scottish Government upholds – that the potential risks from GMOs to public health and our environment outweigh any potential benefits of the technology. As stakeholders in Scotland’s food system, we recognise the importance of protecting and enhancing Scotland’s reputation for good, clean food.
 
“We are aware that many of our major export customers have concerns about GM, while many EU member states including Germany and France are likely to join Scotland in opting out of GM food growing. We note that Scotland’s world-class seed potato industry cannot afford any risk to its reputation for high quality seed – which includes many blight resistant varieties developed through conventional breeding techniques.”

The letter concludes with a critique of the effects of GM crops and the way they have been used, mainly in the US, Canada and South America, over the last 20 years. The technology, the NGOs say,

• concentrates power and control in the global food system, with a handful of companies dominating the market for seeds and pesticides
• makes small farmers run faster to stand still, increasing input costs for seed and herbicides while global commodity prices are falling
• reduces diversity of food, seeds and plants and the resilience of local food economies
• has stolen the limelight from other more viable, less risky scientific solutions for more sustainable modes of production and distribution of food.

Food for people – not a commodity for profit

They stress that they are “not against science” – their opposition arises because “with good reason we do not trust the claims made by corporations with a vested interest in controlling our food system.”

The letter also sets out a vision of agriculture very different to that of large scale commercial farming promoted by the UK government in England, not only as regards GMOs but in its broader purpose and philosophy.

“We encourage the Scottish Government to build on this decision by supporting closer co-operation between Scotland’s farmers, growers, fisherfolk, and Scotland’s people to tackle the central challenge of ensuring that everyone can feed themselves and their family well, without degrading the environment.
 
“We want to see food for people – rather than food as a commodity – at the heart of Scotland’s vision for agriculture. Diversity of crops and food, farming with nature, not against nature, and short food chains between producers and citizens are the keys to Scotland becoming a good food nation – and a global contributor to fair and sustainable food for all.”

As well as the Scottish Crofting Federation, signatories on the letter include Nourish Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Global Justice Now, Unite, Common Good Food, CommonWeal, Compassion in World Farming and Scotland’s Allotments and Gardens Society.

Standing out in favour of GMO crops was the National Farmers Union Scotland, whose president Allan Bowie said: “It is very disappointing. We thought they had possibly started to understand the potential benefits. The hope was to have open discussion and allow science to show the pros and cons for all of us to understand either the potential benefits or potential downsides. What we have now is that our competitors will get any benefits and we have to try and compete. It is rather naïve.”

But Richard Lochhead insisted that the move was in the interests of Scotland’s economy, consumers and farming sector: “The Scottish Government has long-standing concerns about GM crops – concerns that are shared by other European countries and consumers, and which should not be dismissed lightly.

“I firmly believe that GM policy in Scotland should be guided by what’s best for our economy and our own agricultural sector rather than the priorities of others.”

Greens – in the European Parliament and elsewhere – have made the argument for a coherent, long-term policy on investment in resource efficient, low-emission sectors and the need for workforce engagement.

But it’s not easy. Especially when governments seem intent on promoting fossil fuels, sending mixed messages about what they are trying to achieve, or even launching direct attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Take, for example, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s recent decision to scrap the Green Deal, which came shortly after their post election abolition of the the Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.

If truth be known, the Green Deal wasn’t much of a deal and it wasn’t particularly green, being expensive, bureaucratic and inflexible. The real problem is they haven’t replaced it with something better, even though the government claims it wants to save energy.

We know that fuel poverty exists and that we need jobs. We have the potential here in the UK and across Europe to create millions of new jobs in making homes energy-efficient. Why the Government doesn’t recognise this potential and joint the dots is mystifying.

But this battle is worth fighting. Over the next decade, direct and indirect employment in the wind, wave and tidal energy sectors alone could grow to some 3 million jobs in the EU. The transition is already in motion. But will the UK be part of it?

It’s up to us to make sure it will be just, and that green jobs will be decent, and fairly paid, as set out by the combined work of UNEP, the ILO and the ITUC. And moreover that the jobs will be in the UK as well as other European countries.

So what is a ‘green job’?

It could be a solar power engineer or landscape gardener, an organic farmer or a street cleaner, an insulation installer or a cycle repairer. One definition is any decent job that contributes to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment: whether it is in agriculture, industry, services or administration.

What is fundamental is that it should result in work that is fairly paid, and with good working conditions. The green agenda has an intrinsic and unbreakable link to jobs, skills, and the economy: we have to ensure the reality matches the ambition.

In the European Parliament, some political groups struggled to connect the idea of decent work with the expansion of the environmental sector. These concepts can work in tandem though, in fact they must. This is why a major piece of work for me in the last few months has been authoring a report on green jobs – ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘ – for the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of which I’m a member.

It was partly to ensure that all the work done by the previous Commission on the issue was not thrown away by the new lot, with its desire for so-called ‘better regulation’ which seems to mean putting ‘growth’ first.

I’m pleased to say that the European Parliament recently voted to adopt the report with a large majority in the last plenary session before recess, with its remit to find ways to tap into the job creation potential of the green economy. It follows on from last year’s European Commission proposals on green employment as part of the EU’s Europe 2020 objectives.

The Commission’s original package recognised the potential for significant green employment creation, but what it lacked were clear proposals about how this would actually happen. Blanks needed to be filled in by proposing clear steps towards the sustainable transformation of our economy and the creation of quality, long-term jobs.

Clear targets, efective regulations

However, the keys to actually delivering this change lie in two key areas: investment and innovation. This must mean a strong and stable regulatory framework, with ambitious and binding 2030 EU targets on energy saving, resource efficiency and renewable energy.

The report highlights that implementing existing EU energy efficiency and savings measures could create up to 2 million new jobs, with the potential for a further 3 million in the renewables sector.

A clear policy framework could also allow stakeholders some degree of predictability in training or investment decisions, thereby encouraging investment in renewables and resource efficiency. This could then boost jobs in, for example, rural and former industrial areas.

This last part is incredibly important: some rural and post-industrial areas are suffering and people whose families have been in areas for generations are leaving because there is just no work. While globalisation can pose a threat to job security in the industrial sector, many green jobs are likely to be non-re-locatable and in areas of work which cannot be offshored. This is more than potential, it is there for the taking.

Small and medium-sized businesses are one of the most important generators of employment in the EU, they account for more than 80 % of all jobs and have led the way in many ‘green’ sectors. But they may face particular difficulties in anticipating the skills needed and in thus fulfilling the job potential.

We have picked up an excellent project from the NUS, placing unemployed graduates with expertise in sustainability into small companies to provide help and gain experience: we are now trying to get support for this as an EU pilot project. It is though a fact that some sectors will undergo considerable change, and that may mean decline.

Managing that change will be more positive if effective support mechanisms are in place, including retraining and possible change of production.

A further source of green employment will be the circular economy (the antidote to the ‘take-make-dispose’ linear economy) – an initiative scrapped by the incoming Commission in January. My report calls on the European Commission to honour its commitment to make a new proposal on EU waste legislation by the end of 2015.

Hopefully, the Commission public consultation will garner a lot of support for an ambitious package. Green jobs could also be created by shifting the tax burden from employment to environmental costs, if we can ensure that the effect is not regressive.

Likewise, ending the counterproductive subsidies which support polluting or carbon intensive sectors should be a priority.

Wasted potential of lose-lose politics

With the green transition’s success also dependent on how well existing businesses adapt to new circumstances, another key demand is for effective support and retraining measures to increase workforce engagement. Efficient use of EU funds could play a part here.

Finally, the report also puts forward the idea of ‘green representatives’ in trades unions who could work together with employers to green the workplace and indirectly the economy in general: this also draws on experience from the UK.

Unrealised potential is waste. If the EU wants to grasp the possibility of millions of new jobs, that offer a hope of a better future in so many ways, policy has to be consistent and investment and training priorities need to follow.

We should learn from the Green Deal experience: stop-go policy initiatives undermine public confidence, throw people out of work just as new sectors are developing and fail to achieve the necessary transition towards a resource efficient, renewable energy future. This is lose-lose politics, when we need the exact opposite in our thinking.

The report: ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘.

Jean Lambert has been London’s Green Party Member of the European Parliament, since 1999. She sits on the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL), where her work includes a focus on social inclusion, workers’ rights, immigration and social security, and is a member of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE). Jean is on the Council of the civil liberties organisation Liberty. She is Immigration spokesperson for the Green Party of England and Wales.

A British company has announced plans for an array of unique marine turbines that can operate in shallower and slower-moving water than current designs.

Kepler Energy, whose technology is being developed by Oxford University’s department of engineering science, says the turbines will in time produce electricity more cheaply than off-shore wind farms.

It hopes to install its new design in what is called a tidal energy fence, one kilometre long, in the Bristol Channel – an estuary dividing South Wales from the west of England – at a cost of £143m (US$222m).

The fence is a string of linked turbines, each of which will start generating electricity as it is completed, until the whole array is producing power. The fence’s total output is 30 megawatts (MW). Each MW can supply around 1,000 homes in the UK.

Peter Dixon, Kepler’s chairman, told Reuters news agency: “If we can build up to, say, 10 kilometres’ worth, which is a very extended fence, you’re looking at power outputs of five or six hundred megawatts. And just to visualise that, it’s like one small nuclear reactor’s worth of electricity being generated from the tides in the Bristol Channel.”

Suitable for shallow water, fish-friendly

The new Transverse Horizontal Axis Water Turbine (THAWT) will use the latest carbon composite technology, and should be suitable for the waters around Britain, as well as overseas.

What’s new about the design is that the blades need no enveloping supporting structure. “This leads to lower parasitic drag, and hence low power losses and simple, cheap construction with longer rotors across the flow”, says the company.

“This is in contrast to all other transverse horizontal axis turbines on the market, which are limited in their power output by their lack of structural rigidity and consequent limited maximum size.”

The basic generating unit comprises two turbines with a central direct drive generator, with only four supporting bearings and three foundation supports required. “As a consequence of this design, the weight of the unit will be significantly lower than that achievable by propeller type units”, Kepler claims.

“The simplicity of the design – only one rotating unit, with no yaw mechanism, no complex pitch changing mechanisms and with electrical equipment in a dry column – means that the Kepler turbine arrays will have very significantly lower life-cycle costs than those of first generation machines.”

Video: THAWT scale model undergoing testing.

The turbine is scalable to suit different sites.  A typical rotor would be 10m diameter and 60m long sited in a tidal flow with a mean depth of 20m. Tests indicate that the basic 10m diameter, 120m long unit with two turbines should generate more than 4.4 MW at a water velocity of 2m/s, and more than 5.2 MW at a water velocity of 2.5m/s. In addition, the unit will operate with reasonable efficiency at low water velocities.

Because the turbines sit horizontally beneath the surface of the sea, they can be sited in water shallower than the 30-metre depth typically required by current designs. And because the water is slow-moving, the company says, fish can safely avoid the turbines’ blades.

Although the technology is regarded as environmentally benign, Kepler says it will still undergo a rigorous environmental impact assessment during the planning process to ensure that it poses no significant risk to marine life and to other users of the sea.

And unlike wind power, the power output from each installation will be completely predictable long in advance based on the movement of the tides. It will also be possible to site tidal power farms at different sites around the UK and other coastlines to provide a smooth power output, increasing the value of the energy produced.

New wind projects win planning permission – but as yet, no money

There is more good news for proponents of renewable energy after the UK government – which is no longer encouraging onshore wind and solar energy – gave planning consent for a large offshore wind farm that could provide power for up to two million homes.

The new wind farm is to be built near the Dogger Bank in the North Sea and will have 400 turbines. Its developers, Forewind, say it could create almost 5,000 jobs during construction. However it may not go ahead owing to severe cuts in funding for renewable energy including offshore wind, believed to be driven by the UK Chancellor, George Osborne.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Bourne was bullish about the scheme, however: “Thanks to Government support the UK is the world leader in offshore wind energy. As we build the Northern Powerhouse, we want local communities to reap the benefits of investment and green jobs from low carbon developments like Dogger Bank Offshore wind project.”

Earlier this year, Forewind – a consortium comprising SSE, RWE, Statkraft and Statoil – also obtained planning consent for another installation nearby which, with the new development, would form one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world.

But North Sea oil and gas isn’t over yet

But the fossil fuel industry is far from abandoning its own interest in British waters as the energy giant BP has announced that it is to invest about £670m (US$1,040m) to extend the life of its North Sea assets.

It said it would be drilling new wells, replacing undersea infrastructure, and introducing new technologies to help it to produce as much as possible from the area, whose future would be secured “until 2030 and beyond.”

In his recent budget, George Osborne announced new tax breaks to encourage the complete recovery of North Sea oil and gas. This is also a legal requirement under the Infrastructure Act 2015, passed by the previous coalition government.

In November, however, delegates to the UN Climate Change Convention annual negotiations will gather in Paris to try to conclude an ambitious and effective agreement on preventing the global average temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions exceeding 2˚C above its pre-industrial level.

Last year, the Convention’s executive secretary, Christiana Figueres, said the world’s long-term goal was to reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2100 – a target she said would require leaving three-quarters of fossil fuels in the ground. “We just can’t afford to burn them”, she said.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Farmers will not be allowed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops in Scotland, Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead announced over the weekend.

The Scottish Government intends to take advantage of new EU rules allowing countries to opt out of growing EU-authorised GM crops, he said, in effect making Scotland’s long-standing and widely supported moratorium on GMOS permanent.

“Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment – and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status”, he said.

“There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector.”

The Scottish Government will shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including the variety of genetically modified maize already approved and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation.

The risks outweigh any potential benefits

The move has been welcomed by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which represents the nation’s small-scale farmers, together with other civil society organisations who penned an open letter of support to the Scottish government:

“We underline the precautionary principle that the Scottish Government upholds – that the potential risks from GMOs to public health and our environment outweigh any potential benefits of the technology. As stakeholders in Scotland’s food system, we recognise the importance of protecting and enhancing Scotland’s reputation for good, clean food.
 
“We are aware that many of our major export customers have concerns about GM, while many EU member states including Germany and France are likely to join Scotland in opting out of GM food growing. We note that Scotland’s world-class seed potato industry cannot afford any risk to its reputation for high quality seed – which includes many blight resistant varieties developed through conventional breeding techniques.”

The letter concludes with a critique of the effects of GM crops and the way they have been used, mainly in the US, Canada and South America, over the last 20 years. The technology, the NGOs say,

• concentrates power and control in the global food system, with a handful of companies dominating the market for seeds and pesticides
• makes small farmers run faster to stand still, increasing input costs for seed and herbicides while global commodity prices are falling
• reduces diversity of food, seeds and plants and the resilience of local food economies
• has stolen the limelight from other more viable, less risky scientific solutions for more sustainable modes of production and distribution of food.

Food for people – not a commodity for profit

They stress that they are “not against science” – their opposition arises because “with good reason we do not trust the claims made by corporations with a vested interest in controlling our food system.”

The letter also sets out a vision of agriculture very different to that of large scale commercial farming promoted by the UK government in England, not only as regards GMOs but in its broader purpose and philosophy.

“We encourage the Scottish Government to build on this decision by supporting closer co-operation between Scotland’s farmers, growers, fisherfolk, and Scotland’s people to tackle the central challenge of ensuring that everyone can feed themselves and their family well, without degrading the environment.
 
“We want to see food for people – rather than food as a commodity – at the heart of Scotland’s vision for agriculture. Diversity of crops and food, farming with nature, not against nature, and short food chains between producers and citizens are the keys to Scotland becoming a good food nation – and a global contributor to fair and sustainable food for all.”

As well as the Scottish Crofting Federation, signatories on the letter include Nourish Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Global Justice Now, Unite, Common Good Food, CommonWeal, Compassion in World Farming and Scotland’s Allotments and Gardens Society.

Standing out in favour of GMO crops was the National Farmers Union Scotland, whose president Allan Bowie said: “It is very disappointing. We thought they had possibly started to understand the potential benefits. The hope was to have open discussion and allow science to show the pros and cons for all of us to understand either the potential benefits or potential downsides. What we have now is that our competitors will get any benefits and we have to try and compete. It is rather naïve.”

But Richard Lochhead insisted that the move was in the interests of Scotland’s economy, consumers and farming sector: “The Scottish Government has long-standing concerns about GM crops – concerns that are shared by other European countries and consumers, and which should not be dismissed lightly.

“I firmly believe that GM policy in Scotland should be guided by what’s best for our economy and our own agricultural sector rather than the priorities of others.”

Greens – in the European Parliament and elsewhere – have made the argument for a coherent, long-term policy on investment in resource efficient, low-emission sectors and the need for workforce engagement.

But it’s not easy. Especially when governments seem intent on promoting fossil fuels, sending mixed messages about what they are trying to achieve, or even launching direct attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Take, for example, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s recent decision to scrap the Green Deal, which came shortly after their post election abolition of the the Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.

If truth be known, the Green Deal wasn’t much of a deal and it wasn’t particularly green, being expensive, bureaucratic and inflexible. The real problem is they haven’t replaced it with something better, even though the government claims it wants to save energy.

We know that fuel poverty exists and that we need jobs. We have the potential here in the UK and across Europe to create millions of new jobs in making homes energy-efficient. Why the Government doesn’t recognise this potential and joint the dots is mystifying.

But this battle is worth fighting. Over the next decade, direct and indirect employment in the wind, wave and tidal energy sectors alone could grow to some 3 million jobs in the EU. The transition is already in motion. But will the UK be part of it?

It’s up to us to make sure it will be just, and that green jobs will be decent, and fairly paid, as set out by the combined work of UNEP, the ILO and the ITUC. And moreover that the jobs will be in the UK as well as other European countries.

So what is a ‘green job’?

It could be a solar power engineer or landscape gardener, an organic farmer or a street cleaner, an insulation installer or a cycle repairer. One definition is any decent job that contributes to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment: whether it is in agriculture, industry, services or administration.

What is fundamental is that it should result in work that is fairly paid, and with good working conditions. The green agenda has an intrinsic and unbreakable link to jobs, skills, and the economy: we have to ensure the reality matches the ambition.

In the European Parliament, some political groups struggled to connect the idea of decent work with the expansion of the environmental sector. These concepts can work in tandem though, in fact they must. This is why a major piece of work for me in the last few months has been authoring a report on green jobs – ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘ – for the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of which I’m a member.

It was partly to ensure that all the work done by the previous Commission on the issue was not thrown away by the new lot, with its desire for so-called ‘better regulation’ which seems to mean putting ‘growth’ first.

I’m pleased to say that the European Parliament recently voted to adopt the report with a large majority in the last plenary session before recess, with its remit to find ways to tap into the job creation potential of the green economy. It follows on from last year’s European Commission proposals on green employment as part of the EU’s Europe 2020 objectives.

The Commission’s original package recognised the potential for significant green employment creation, but what it lacked were clear proposals about how this would actually happen. Blanks needed to be filled in by proposing clear steps towards the sustainable transformation of our economy and the creation of quality, long-term jobs.

Clear targets, efective regulations

However, the keys to actually delivering this change lie in two key areas: investment and innovation. This must mean a strong and stable regulatory framework, with ambitious and binding 2030 EU targets on energy saving, resource efficiency and renewable energy.

The report highlights that implementing existing EU energy efficiency and savings measures could create up to 2 million new jobs, with the potential for a further 3 million in the renewables sector.

A clear policy framework could also allow stakeholders some degree of predictability in training or investment decisions, thereby encouraging investment in renewables and resource efficiency. This could then boost jobs in, for example, rural and former industrial areas.

This last part is incredibly important: some rural and post-industrial areas are suffering and people whose families have been in areas for generations are leaving because there is just no work. While globalisation can pose a threat to job security in the industrial sector, many green jobs are likely to be non-re-locatable and in areas of work which cannot be offshored. This is more than potential, it is there for the taking.

Small and medium-sized businesses are one of the most important generators of employment in the EU, they account for more than 80 % of all jobs and have led the way in many ‘green’ sectors. But they may face particular difficulties in anticipating the skills needed and in thus fulfilling the job potential.

We have picked up an excellent project from the NUS, placing unemployed graduates with expertise in sustainability into small companies to provide help and gain experience: we are now trying to get support for this as an EU pilot project. It is though a fact that some sectors will undergo considerable change, and that may mean decline.

Managing that change will be more positive if effective support mechanisms are in place, including retraining and possible change of production.

A further source of green employment will be the circular economy (the antidote to the ‘take-make-dispose’ linear economy) – an initiative scrapped by the incoming Commission in January. My report calls on the European Commission to honour its commitment to make a new proposal on EU waste legislation by the end of 2015.

Hopefully, the Commission public consultation will garner a lot of support for an ambitious package. Green jobs could also be created by shifting the tax burden from employment to environmental costs, if we can ensure that the effect is not regressive.

Likewise, ending the counterproductive subsidies which support polluting or carbon intensive sectors should be a priority.

Wasted potential of lose-lose politics

With the green transition’s success also dependent on how well existing businesses adapt to new circumstances, another key demand is for effective support and retraining measures to increase workforce engagement. Efficient use of EU funds could play a part here.

Finally, the report also puts forward the idea of ‘green representatives’ in trades unions who could work together with employers to green the workplace and indirectly the economy in general: this also draws on experience from the UK.

Unrealised potential is waste. If the EU wants to grasp the possibility of millions of new jobs, that offer a hope of a better future in so many ways, policy has to be consistent and investment and training priorities need to follow.

We should learn from the Green Deal experience: stop-go policy initiatives undermine public confidence, throw people out of work just as new sectors are developing and fail to achieve the necessary transition towards a resource efficient, renewable energy future. This is lose-lose politics, when we need the exact opposite in our thinking.

The report: ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘.

Jean Lambert has been London’s Green Party Member of the European Parliament, since 1999. She sits on the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL), where her work includes a focus on social inclusion, workers’ rights, immigration and social security, and is a member of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE). Jean is on the Council of the civil liberties organisation Liberty. She is Immigration spokesperson for the Green Party of England and Wales.

A British company has announced plans for an array of unique marine turbines that can operate in shallower and slower-moving water than current designs.

Kepler Energy, whose technology is being developed by Oxford University’s department of engineering science, says the turbines will in time produce electricity more cheaply than off-shore wind farms.

It hopes to install its new design in what is called a tidal energy fence, one kilometre long, in the Bristol Channel – an estuary dividing South Wales from the west of England – at a cost of £143m (US$222m).

The fence is a string of linked turbines, each of which will start generating electricity as it is completed, until the whole array is producing power. The fence’s total output is 30 megawatts (MW). Each MW can supply around 1,000 homes in the UK.

Peter Dixon, Kepler’s chairman, told Reuters news agency: “If we can build up to, say, 10 kilometres’ worth, which is a very extended fence, you’re looking at power outputs of five or six hundred megawatts. And just to visualise that, it’s like one small nuclear reactor’s worth of electricity being generated from the tides in the Bristol Channel.”

Suitable for shallow water, fish-friendly

The new Transverse Horizontal Axis Water Turbine (THAWT) will use the latest carbon composite technology, and should be suitable for the waters around Britain, as well as overseas.

What’s new about the design is that the blades need no enveloping supporting structure. “This leads to lower parasitic drag, and hence low power losses and simple, cheap construction with longer rotors across the flow”, says the company.

“This is in contrast to all other transverse horizontal axis turbines on the market, which are limited in their power output by their lack of structural rigidity and consequent limited maximum size.”

The basic generating unit comprises two turbines with a central direct drive generator, with only four supporting bearings and three foundation supports required. “As a consequence of this design, the weight of the unit will be significantly lower than that achievable by propeller type units”, Kepler claims.

“The simplicity of the design – only one rotating unit, with no yaw mechanism, no complex pitch changing mechanisms and with electrical equipment in a dry column – means that the Kepler turbine arrays will have very significantly lower life-cycle costs than those of first generation machines.”

Video: THAWT scale model undergoing testing.

The turbine is scalable to suit different sites.  A typical rotor would be 10m diameter and 60m long sited in a tidal flow with a mean depth of 20m. Tests indicate that the basic 10m diameter, 120m long unit with two turbines should generate more than 4.4 MW at a water velocity of 2m/s, and more than 5.2 MW at a water velocity of 2.5m/s. In addition, the unit will operate with reasonable efficiency at low water velocities.

Because the turbines sit horizontally beneath the surface of the sea, they can be sited in water shallower than the 30-metre depth typically required by current designs. And because the water is slow-moving, the company says, fish can safely avoid the turbines’ blades.

Although the technology is regarded as environmentally benign, Kepler says it will still undergo a rigorous environmental impact assessment during the planning process to ensure that it poses no significant risk to marine life and to other users of the sea.

And unlike wind power, the power output from each installation will be completely predictable long in advance based on the movement of the tides. It will also be possible to site tidal power farms at different sites around the UK and other coastlines to provide a smooth power output, increasing the value of the energy produced.

New wind projects win planning permission – but as yet, no money

There is more good news for proponents of renewable energy after the UK government – which is no longer encouraging onshore wind and solar energy – gave planning consent for a large offshore wind farm that could provide power for up to two million homes.

The new wind farm is to be built near the Dogger Bank in the North Sea and will have 400 turbines. Its developers, Forewind, say it could create almost 5,000 jobs during construction. However it may not go ahead owing to severe cuts in funding for renewable energy including offshore wind, believed to be driven by the UK Chancellor, George Osborne.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Bourne was bullish about the scheme, however: “Thanks to Government support the UK is the world leader in offshore wind energy. As we build the Northern Powerhouse, we want local communities to reap the benefits of investment and green jobs from low carbon developments like Dogger Bank Offshore wind project.”

Earlier this year, Forewind – a consortium comprising SSE, RWE, Statkraft and Statoil – also obtained planning consent for another installation nearby which, with the new development, would form one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world.

But North Sea oil and gas isn’t over yet

But the fossil fuel industry is far from abandoning its own interest in British waters as the energy giant BP has announced that it is to invest about £670m (US$1,040m) to extend the life of its North Sea assets.

It said it would be drilling new wells, replacing undersea infrastructure, and introducing new technologies to help it to produce as much as possible from the area, whose future would be secured “until 2030 and beyond.”

In his recent budget, George Osborne announced new tax breaks to encourage the complete recovery of North Sea oil and gas. This is also a legal requirement under the Infrastructure Act 2015, passed by the previous coalition government.

In November, however, delegates to the UN Climate Change Convention annual negotiations will gather in Paris to try to conclude an ambitious and effective agreement on preventing the global average temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions exceeding 2˚C above its pre-industrial level.

Last year, the Convention’s executive secretary, Christiana Figueres, said the world’s long-term goal was to reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2100 – a target she said would require leaving three-quarters of fossil fuels in the ground. “We just can’t afford to burn them”, she said.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Farmers will not be allowed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops in Scotland, Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead announced over the weekend.

The Scottish Government intends to take advantage of new EU rules allowing countries to opt out of growing EU-authorised GM crops, he said, in effect making Scotland’s long-standing and widely supported moratorium on GMOS permanent.

“Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment – and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status”, he said.

“There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector.”

The Scottish Government will shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including the variety of genetically modified maize already approved and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation.

The risks outweigh any potential benefits

The move has been welcomed by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which represents the nation’s small-scale farmers, together with other civil society organisations who penned an open letter of support to the Scottish government:

“We underline the precautionary principle that the Scottish Government upholds – that the potential risks from GMOs to public health and our environment outweigh any potential benefits of the technology. As stakeholders in Scotland’s food system, we recognise the importance of protecting and enhancing Scotland’s reputation for good, clean food.
 
“We are aware that many of our major export customers have concerns about GM, while many EU member states including Germany and France are likely to join Scotland in opting out of GM food growing. We note that Scotland’s world-class seed potato industry cannot afford any risk to its reputation for high quality seed – which includes many blight resistant varieties developed through conventional breeding techniques.”

The letter concludes with a critique of the effects of GM crops and the way they have been used, mainly in the US, Canada and South America, over the last 20 years. The technology, the NGOs say,

• concentrates power and control in the global food system, with a handful of companies dominating the market for seeds and pesticides
• makes small farmers run faster to stand still, increasing input costs for seed and herbicides while global commodity prices are falling
• reduces diversity of food, seeds and plants and the resilience of local food economies
• has stolen the limelight from other more viable, less risky scientific solutions for more sustainable modes of production and distribution of food.

Food for people – not a commodity for profit

They stress that they are “not against science” – their opposition arises because “with good reason we do not trust the claims made by corporations with a vested interest in controlling our food system.”

The letter also sets out a vision of agriculture very different to that of large scale commercial farming promoted by the UK government in England, not only as regards GMOs but in its broader purpose and philosophy.

“We encourage the Scottish Government to build on this decision by supporting closer co-operation between Scotland’s farmers, growers, fisherfolk, and Scotland’s people to tackle the central challenge of ensuring that everyone can feed themselves and their family well, without degrading the environment.
 
“We want to see food for people – rather than food as a commodity – at the heart of Scotland’s vision for agriculture. Diversity of crops and food, farming with nature, not against nature, and short food chains between producers and citizens are the keys to Scotland becoming a good food nation – and a global contributor to fair and sustainable food for all.”

As well as the Scottish Crofting Federation, signatories on the letter include Nourish Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Global Justice Now, Unite, Common Good Food, CommonWeal, Compassion in World Farming and Scotland’s Allotments and Gardens Society.

Standing out in favour of GMO crops was the National Farmers Union Scotland, whose president Allan Bowie said: “It is very disappointing. We thought they had possibly started to understand the potential benefits. The hope was to have open discussion and allow science to show the pros and cons for all of us to understand either the potential benefits or potential downsides. What we have now is that our competitors will get any benefits and we have to try and compete. It is rather naïve.”

But Richard Lochhead insisted that the move was in the interests of Scotland’s economy, consumers and farming sector: “The Scottish Government has long-standing concerns about GM crops – concerns that are shared by other European countries and consumers, and which should not be dismissed lightly.

“I firmly believe that GM policy in Scotland should be guided by what’s best for our economy and our own agricultural sector rather than the priorities of others.”

Greens – in the European Parliament and elsewhere – have made the argument for a coherent, long-term policy on investment in resource efficient, low-emission sectors and the need for workforce engagement.

But it’s not easy. Especially when governments seem intent on promoting fossil fuels, sending mixed messages about what they are trying to achieve, or even launching direct attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Take, for example, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s recent decision to scrap the Green Deal, which came shortly after their post election abolition of the the Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.

If truth be known, the Green Deal wasn’t much of a deal and it wasn’t particularly green, being expensive, bureaucratic and inflexible. The real problem is they haven’t replaced it with something better, even though the government claims it wants to save energy.

We know that fuel poverty exists and that we need jobs. We have the potential here in the UK and across Europe to create millions of new jobs in making homes energy-efficient. Why the Government doesn’t recognise this potential and joint the dots is mystifying.

But this battle is worth fighting. Over the next decade, direct and indirect employment in the wind, wave and tidal energy sectors alone could grow to some 3 million jobs in the EU. The transition is already in motion. But will the UK be part of it?

It’s up to us to make sure it will be just, and that green jobs will be decent, and fairly paid, as set out by the combined work of UNEP, the ILO and the ITUC. And moreover that the jobs will be in the UK as well as other European countries.

So what is a ‘green job’?

It could be a solar power engineer or landscape gardener, an organic farmer or a street cleaner, an insulation installer or a cycle repairer. One definition is any decent job that contributes to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment: whether it is in agriculture, industry, services or administration.

What is fundamental is that it should result in work that is fairly paid, and with good working conditions. The green agenda has an intrinsic and unbreakable link to jobs, skills, and the economy: we have to ensure the reality matches the ambition.

In the European Parliament, some political groups struggled to connect the idea of decent work with the expansion of the environmental sector. These concepts can work in tandem though, in fact they must. This is why a major piece of work for me in the last few months has been authoring a report on green jobs – ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘ – for the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of which I’m a member.

It was partly to ensure that all the work done by the previous Commission on the issue was not thrown away by the new lot, with its desire for so-called ‘better regulation’ which seems to mean putting ‘growth’ first.

I’m pleased to say that the European Parliament recently voted to adopt the report with a large majority in the last plenary session before recess, with its remit to find ways to tap into the job creation potential of the green economy. It follows on from last year’s European Commission proposals on green employment as part of the EU’s Europe 2020 objectives.

The Commission’s original package recognised the potential for significant green employment creation, but what it lacked were clear proposals about how this would actually happen. Blanks needed to be filled in by proposing clear steps towards the sustainable transformation of our economy and the creation of quality, long-term jobs.

Clear targets, efective regulations

However, the keys to actually delivering this change lie in two key areas: investment and innovation. This must mean a strong and stable regulatory framework, with ambitious and binding 2030 EU targets on energy saving, resource efficiency and renewable energy.

The report highlights that implementing existing EU energy efficiency and savings measures could create up to 2 million new jobs, with the potential for a further 3 million in the renewables sector.

A clear policy framework could also allow stakeholders some degree of predictability in training or investment decisions, thereby encouraging investment in renewables and resource efficiency. This could then boost jobs in, for example, rural and former industrial areas.

This last part is incredibly important: some rural and post-industrial areas are suffering and people whose families have been in areas for generations are leaving because there is just no work. While globalisation can pose a threat to job security in the industrial sector, many green jobs are likely to be non-re-locatable and in areas of work which cannot be offshored. This is more than potential, it is there for the taking.

Small and medium-sized businesses are one of the most important generators of employment in the EU, they account for more than 80 % of all jobs and have led the way in many ‘green’ sectors. But they may face particular difficulties in anticipating the skills needed and in thus fulfilling the job potential.

We have picked up an excellent project from the NUS, placing unemployed graduates with expertise in sustainability into small companies to provide help and gain experience: we are now trying to get support for this as an EU pilot project. It is though a fact that some sectors will undergo considerable change, and that may mean decline.

Managing that change will be more positive if effective support mechanisms are in place, including retraining and possible change of production.

A further source of green employment will be the circular economy (the antidote to the ‘take-make-dispose’ linear economy) – an initiative scrapped by the incoming Commission in January. My report calls on the European Commission to honour its commitment to make a new proposal on EU waste legislation by the end of 2015.

Hopefully, the Commission public consultation will garner a lot of support for an ambitious package. Green jobs could also be created by shifting the tax burden from employment to environmental costs, if we can ensure that the effect is not regressive.

Likewise, ending the counterproductive subsidies which support polluting or carbon intensive sectors should be a priority.

Wasted potential of lose-lose politics

With the green transition’s success also dependent on how well existing businesses adapt to new circumstances, another key demand is for effective support and retraining measures to increase workforce engagement. Efficient use of EU funds could play a part here.

Finally, the report also puts forward the idea of ‘green representatives’ in trades unions who could work together with employers to green the workplace and indirectly the economy in general: this also draws on experience from the UK.

Unrealised potential is waste. If the EU wants to grasp the possibility of millions of new jobs, that offer a hope of a better future in so many ways, policy has to be consistent and investment and training priorities need to follow.

We should learn from the Green Deal experience: stop-go policy initiatives undermine public confidence, throw people out of work just as new sectors are developing and fail to achieve the necessary transition towards a resource efficient, renewable energy future. This is lose-lose politics, when we need the exact opposite in our thinking.

The report: ‘Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy‘.

Jean Lambert has been London’s Green Party Member of the European Parliament, since 1999. She sits on the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL), where her work includes a focus on social inclusion, workers’ rights, immigration and social security, and is a member of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE). Jean is on the Council of the civil liberties organisation Liberty. She is Immigration spokesperson for the Green Party of England and Wales.