Homeowners considering switching to solar panel systems should do it now – before a cut-off point next year that could strip the opportunity for large financial incentives.

For a long time, the solar technology available to the public for turning sunlight into electricity was beyond the financial reach of many households.

A survey conducted by energy efficiency experts YES Energy Solutions found that 55 percent of homeowners had not invested in solar panels because they believed it was too expensive.

Falling costs

However due to falling costs, improved technology, Government incentives and greater competition between manufacturers, solar panels have become more affordable.

Currently, under the Government’s Feed-in Tariff scheme, you receive payment for any electricity you produce as well as any surplus electricity that you transfer back to the grid.

The latest figures from Ofgem state that as of October 2018, for each kWh you generate you get 3.86p, while for each kWh you export you receive 5.24p.

The total amount you earn depends on your location and how much electricity you use. According to the MoneySavingExpert, in London, the estimated average savings per year came to £340. In Manchester the figure was £305.

However, the Government has confirmed that from April 2019 it will axe the payments for generating electricity. It has also proposed ending payments for exporting electricity.

Additional payments

This means that after the cut-off point, the only benefit to having solar panels will be the electricity savings, as the opportunity to make additional payments through the scheme will be missed.

Without the large financial incentives, it would take an estimated 70 years to recoup the initial investment, which is nearly three times the lifespan of some solar panels.

Crucially, those who have purchased their solar panels before this point will not be affected and can still earn back their investment within 20 years.

In 2007, the average home was billed £415 for its yearly electricity and ten years later, this figure had risen by almost £200 and stood at £619.

Throughout 2018, all of the UK’s ‘big six’ energy providers – npower, E.ON, Scottish Power, SSE, EDF and British Gas – implemented price hikes after Ofgem increased the prepayment price cap.

This will mean millions of customers face average additional payments of around £100 a year on their energy bills.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from YES Energy Solutions. 

An investigation has been launched into allegations the judge who handed three fracking protesters “manifestly excessive” jail sentences has family ties to the oil and gas industry.

Judge Robert Altham sentenced Simon Blevins, Richard Roberts and Richard Loizou to up to 16 months in prison after they were convicted by a jury of causing a public nuisance offence. The protesters had their sentences quashed in an appeal case last week.  

Under the Judicial Code of Conduct, judges are expected to disclose personal relationships, social contacts and activities that could cause a bias or a conflict of interest and which put their impartiality into question.

Properly investigated

In a statement, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), an independent body which deals with judicial complaints of misconduct, has confirmed receiving a complaint regarding Judge Robert Altham and added that it will be considered in accordance with the Judicial Conduct Rules.

The JCIO only deals with complaints regarding the personal conduct of judicial office holders, such as misusing judicial status for personal gain or failing to declare a potential conflict of interest. The body does not accept complaints about a judge’s decision or the way they managed a case.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct states that judges “should avoid situations which might reasonably reduce respect for judicial office or might cast doubt upon their judicial impartiality; or which might expose them to charges of hypocrisy by reason of their private life”.

It adds that the principle of judicial independence extends well beyond the traditional separation of powers and requires “that a judge be, and be seen to be, independent of all sources of power or influence in society, including the media and commercial interests”.

Under the Judicial Conduct Rules, the Lord Chancellor Conservative MP David Gauke, and the Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett share responsibility for overseeing complaints are properly investigated.

Necessary enquiries

Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett heard the appeal case against the three fracking protesters’ prison sentence last week and told the court it was “manifestly excessive”.

The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are also responsible for the final decision regarding the judicial complaint and there is no right to appeal against their decision.

They are assisted by nominated judges, investigating judges disciplinary hearing panel members and JCIO officials.

The JCIO is responsible for considering allegations of judicial misconduct, assessing whether the allegation could amount to misconduct and making the necessary enquiries for the investigation.

If the JCIO estimates that an allegation could amount to misconduct, the complaint is referred to a nominated judge, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. Otherwise, the complaint is dismissed.

Family interests

The nominated judge is also responsible for stating what sanctions might be appropriate if they estimate the allegation amounts to misconduct. This could include being removed or suspended from office.

In this case, the subject of the complaint can call for a disciplinary panel to be convened to review the evidence. The panel then submits a report to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, who oversee the decision making process.

If the investigation concludes that there is no judicial misconduct, the nominated judge can still suggest that the subject of the complaint receives pastoral support, advice or training.

A spokesman for the JCIO told DeSmog UK he could not comment on how long the investigation into the complaint regarding Judge Altham is expected to last.

Meanwhile, in a written question, Labour MP for Blackpool South Gordon Marsden asked whether the Ministry of Justice will undertake an investigation into allegations Judge Altham breached the Judicial Code of Conduct by failing to declare his family interests.

Ships’ stores

Lucy Frazer MP, the parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice, replied:“It would not be appropriate for me or any other government minister to comment on cases which are, or have been, before the courts.”

A week before the appeal case which saw the three fracking activists being freed from Preston prison, The Daily Mirror reported that Judge Robert Altham’s family business was “believed to be” part of energy company Centrica’ supply chain.

Centrica bought a 25 per cent stake in Cuadrilla and its partner AJ Lucas’ exploration licence in Lancashire in a 2013 deal which included Centrica pumping £60 million into the fracking venture.

John and Linda Altham are listed as the company director of J.C Altham & Sons, a company that provides ships’ stores and offshore supplies for oil and gas platforms.

The company’s website says it is under reconstruction and has been locked behind a login and password.

Sentencing decisions

Jane Margaret Watson is listed on Companies House as the company’s managing director and according to the Mirror she is also the judge’s sister.

Kirsty Brimelow QC, the human rights lawyer who was representing the three men pro-bono, told the Court of Appeal that Judge Altham’s sister had signed a petition in Lancashire in favour of fracking.

The Mirror reported that Jane Watson signed an open letter dated 8 January 2015 which called on Lancashire County Council to “give shale gas a chance” and argued that the new industry could generate a “£33bn supply chain”.

The letter was signed by more than 100 business leaders from the North West of England and Jane Watson signed as managing director of J.C Altham & Sons.

Following the Mirror’s allegations, a spokesman for the Judicial Office said: “Judges are required to base their sentencing decisions on the facts of each case and within the relevant sentencing guidelines and carefully explain their reasoning in court.

Anti-fracking campaigners

“There are longstanding principles, set out in case law, which guide how judges approach possible conflicts of interest. These principles are explained in the publicly available Guide to Judicial Conduct.

“They ensure that when hearing a case, a judge will be mindful of possible conflicts of interest, and can draw relevant matters to the attention of the parties in the case.”

Judge Altham did not wish to respond to the Mirror’s allegations.

The three fracking protesters, who were arrested for spending between two and four days on top of lorries that were making their way to the Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire where Cuadrilla Resources has started to frack for shale gas, were freed from Preston prison a few hours after the appeal case overturned their sentences last Wednesday.

Strong convictions

Outside the courtroom in London there was an explosion of joy from the three men’s families and girlfriends and anti-fracking campaigners upon hearing the judges’ ruling.

Platon Loizou, Richard Loizou’s father, told DeSmog UK: “I am over the moon and the fight will continue against fracking. The first phase was to get my son out of prison. Now the fight continues”.

Speaking outside the court, Michelle Easton, Roberts’ girlfriend, said that while the men were still convicted of causing public nuisance, the latest sentence was aligned with “the rights that we have in this country”.

“You do not lock up protesters who are peaceful, who have strong convictions and who stand for what is right. That should not be allowed to happen in this country,” she said.

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Lidl has announced “industry leading commitments” to sourcing soy from sustainable, deforestation-free sources. Lidl UK will only source soy from sustainable sources from this month, within its own supply chain.

The company claims its sustainable soy policy “is the boldest move by any supermarket in the UK” and “signals a step change in commitments to creating a sustainable soy industry”.

The supermarket has also committed to working with all its UK suppliers to achieve physically traceable, sustainable, zero-deforestation soy in the long term, as well as purchasing Roundtable for Responsible Soy (RTRS) credits.

Responsible sourcing 

Lidl UK was also a founding signatory of the Cerrado Manifesto in 2017 – a call to action to halt deforestation and native vegetation loss in Brazil’s Cerrado. The vast majority of soy (90 percent) that comes into the EU, is used to feed livestock in the production of meat, poultry, dairy and eggs.

The supermarket sees the move as a critical first step in creating a sustainable sector. Through a ‘direct trade, book and claim’ approach, Lidl will invest its premiums in specific farms in Brazil, that produce soy to the industry acknowledged social and environmental standards, defined by the respected Roundtable for Responsible Soy.

The company hopes that these commitments will lay the groundwork for a rapid increase in market demand for sustainable soy. Amali Bunter, Responsible Sourcing Manager for Lidl UK commented: “At Lidl UK, we are taking action to ensure that soy production is sustainable and deforestation-free for the long term.

“We want to create sustainable supply chains that protect the environment, while also delivering high quality products at unbeatable value, and as a major food retailer, we recognise the need to accelerate progress towards a secure, resilient supply of sustainable soy. Through the UK Roundtable for Sustainable Soy we look forward to working collaboratively with industry to ensure that this is achieved.”

Huge opportunities

Claire Perry, minister for energy and clean growth, said: “The UK has led the world in cutting emissions whilst growing our economy –  with clean growth driving incredible innovation and creating hundreds of thousands of high quality jobs.

“Ten years on from the Climate Change Act, the first ever Green GB week is a time to build on our successes and explain the huge opportunities for business and young people of a cleaner economy.

“I’m delighted to see how many more businesses and organisations such as Lidl are seizing this multi-billion pound opportunity to energize their communities to tackle the very serious threat of climate change.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Headland Consultancy. 

Dr Benny Peiser, a sports anthropologist whose PhD focused on the ancient Olympic games, was chosen by Julian Morris, founder and president of the International Policy Network, to submit a chapter to the think tank’s publication on climate change entitled Adapt or Die.

Peiser’s chapter was called Climate Change and Civilisation Collapse and in it he explained that humans had often panicked about the end of the world, and expressed his view that global warming was just the latest example.

Peiser explained his theory that Marxists, who became disillusioned by the failure of capitalism to collapse in on itself, turned instead to the environmental cause.

Climate credentials

“Deeply infuriated by the failure of their predictions and the unremitting vibrancy of capitalism, many disillusioned believers turned to ecological pessimism and environmental determinism,” he argued.

“However, none of these horror scenarios has alarmed the public as much as the alleged peril of human-caused global warming.”

Elsewhere, Peiser has boasted about his own youthful environmentalism to boost his credentials as a commentator on climate change. He likes to tell the story of how he was a founding member of the pioneering German Green Party in Frankfurt, and would play football with leading Green politician Joschka Fisher.

In his telling, his latter-day conversion to denial represents an intellectual maturity. However, the extent of his teenage radicalism may have come as a surprise to his sponsor Lord Nigel Lawson and his other free market friends – while his late conservatism has been a disappointment to the environmentalists in his family.

Street fighter

Dieter Nentwig is married to Rina, Peiser’s half-sister and, during the 1980s, hired Peiser, a student at the University of Frankfurt, to work as an assistant at his music agency.

Nentwig told me: “He changed his attitude too… he changed everything, you know. Don’t ask me why. He cut his hair short and things like that. He was like a hippy. He was like a left-wing street fighter for a couple of years, taking part in all the big demonstrations going on in Frankfurt, not only against nuclear power, also against the Hausbesetzer – big houses being taken over by the housing agents to remove them, to throw people out and get rich people in.

“And students in those days took those houses illegally, and squatted [in] the house. And he was in that movement too. And there were big street fights in Frankfurt, I know he was part of this.”  

He added: “We were certainly surprised he became more bourgeois as we would say. And we didn’t investigate [the question of] why did he change.”

Marxist demonstrators

Peiser managed the musician Frank Wolff and his band, Frankfurter Kurorchester, who would perform before tens of thousands of anarchist and Marxist demonstrators fighting with the police at German nuclear power stations – around the same time that Lawson was suppressing the coal miners’ strike in England.

Wolff said: “He was a pretty radical left-winger – he always does things in some way radical. Arno Lustiger [a German historian] was a fatherly friend to Benny and decidedly left wing. Benny was surely dogmatic – maybe not so much anymore today – but heavily dedicated.”

Wolff believes Peiser was a member of the Maoist Communist Union North. And he was always a contrarian.

“In Germany, everyone bitched about Boris Becker [the former world No. 1 professional tennis player]. Not everyone, but the intellectuals – ‘he can’t even speak German correctly’ and so on. And Benny said: ‘Why, he is a great tennis player’. Yes, he consciously took the opposite opinion. That’s kind of typical for him.”

Research and Writing

Peiser wrote for the hardline radical Frankfurt newspaper Pflasterstrand and knew the Marxist editor, Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Cohn-Bendit was also a founder of the autonomist group, Revolutionärer Kampf (Revolutionary Struggle), which recently became mired in controversy for the “fictional” accounts he published in the 1980s describing sexualised encounters with young children.

Peiser landed a lecturing post in the sports department at Liverpool John Moores University in 1993 where he met his wife Gillian, who had worked as a language teacher in secondary schools before working at the education department of the university.

Professor Tim Cable, his boss, said that the university tried desperately to convince Peiser to engage in substantive research but, during almost two decades, he produced only three published papers.

Peiser began sending out a newsletter, called CCNet, which began discussing asteroids and moved onto climate science, and would occasionally get quoted in the media. Cable, giving evidence to an information tribunal, said the university simply ignored what Peiser said even though he was breaking media protocol.

He admitted the university was embarrassed when the Times Higher Education Supplement compared Peiser to the moronic Simpsons character, Homer Simpson.

Cable said: “He was not a trained scientist… Dr Peiser’s work in climate science had no scientific credibility… it brought disrepute to the university, not repute.”

Peiser does have a point that some in the environment movement have abandoned their Marxist past. But, he is living proof that former Marxists are well represented among the denier and free market think tank world too.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Mathiatis, a Cypriot village nestled in the foothills of the Troodos mountain range, is entangled in a fierce fight for identity, community and nature.

For the past year it is threatened, as Hellenic Copper Mines (HCM) seeks to reopen an ancient mine to extract gold. The reopening of the mine would have major environmental, cultural and health impacts.

Citizen groups such as the Historical and Environmental Protection Group of Mathiatis are fighting back. They have written letters, organised demonstrations and have been in and out of parliament to plead their case. They have organised tours of the area with geologists and archaeologists to help local people understand what is at stake.

Bird species

At first, the community convinced the Department of Antiquities that risk to archaeological evidence was too large. But now they face a second challenge as HCM has reapplied for a new license.

The ancient South Mathiatis site was first used as a copper mine in 600 BC. Between 1935 and 1945, when the country was under British occupation, the Cyprus Mines Corporation (CMC) used the military backing by the occupiers to turn it into a gold mine.

The British Colonial period resulted in horrific conditions and many deaths for Cypriot workers. While the occupation ended a lifetime ago, its legacy still exists today.

The laws still writes that companies don’t need to rehabilitate the environment around the mine. The island, scarred by the conflict of 1974, is divided. This leaves Cyprus open to exploitation by private companies. Already twenty-five potential mining sites have been identified around the island.

The wildlife that over time has had the chance to reestablish would be disrupted. The area around the mine is forested by pine trees that house rare bird species such as the Hoopoe.

Ochre landscape

In the ancient galleries, three species of endangered bats are nested. They are protected by European law. If trucks would start transporting ore from Mathiatis to the gold processing plant in Skouriotissa, both human and animal life would be affected.

Air pollution caused by large scale excavation work would have a huge impact on the health of the local population. The region already suffers from severe dust clouds.

Further pollution would affect the cultivation of the land in this largely pastoral area. The area faces increasing desertification and the original proposal of HCM to cut 2,000 trees was therefore alarming.

The environmental and health damages from the reopening of the mine are obvious. But there are other, less quantifiable but equally important consequences. In this region, the culture of the people is closely tied to the landscape.

Only 2km from the village, the South Mathiatis Mine or “Strongylos Mine” appears as an open pit in the vibrant orange, umber and ochre landscape.

Promises of jobs

However, it is an area full of archaeologically significant sites with evidence of ancient mining dating back to 600 BC. It is a proposed site in the tentative list of UNESCO World Heritage Monuments in the category of Natural and Cultural Landscape.

Geologically, the 90-million-year-old fragment of oceanic crust draws visitors and scientists from all over the world. Archaeologically rare artefacts unique to the eastern Mediterranean were discovered and the community of Mathiatis is listed among the first on travellers’ maps for importance linked to mining activity.

“Slag”- evidence of ancient mining found around the open cast Mathiatis mine. Photo: Etienne Montel

The community’s combat has been marked by both victories and setbacks. Currently, the new proposal of HCM seeks to extract gold from the surrounding waste dumps from previous mining activity.

The company argues that this will clean up the area, doing the government and the environment a favor.

Members of the community see past the company’s arguments and their promises of jobs, prosperity and a new football field. Some, like Thea Christoforou, highlighted that the community would get an insignificant amount of the profits.

Ecological wellbeing

There’s a law that states that the government would only gain one percent of the company’s profits. From this the community gets only 0.4 percent.

But there’s more to this than money. The community doesn’t only oppose the mine, they also try to redefine and reclaim the vision of development co-opted by Hellenic Copper Mines and the government.

Instead of extraction and destruction of the local ecosystem in pursuit of profit for the few, they demand the sharing and caring of their commons.

Evi Charalambous, a key member of the local resistance, emphasizes this could also translate into educational and eco-tourism that seeks to combine the nature and heritage of the area.

Female activists

The groups represent two of the many citizens led initiatives on the Island that challenge the government’s view of “development” and demand that the community and ecological wellbeing come first.

They are part of a struggle against a wider problem in Cyprus where neoliberal policies sell off coastal areas and destruct protected areas.

As Myrto Skouroupathi from Young Friends of the Earth Cyprus said: “By extending solidarity to other affected communities, those in Mathiatis are helping to turn the tide as a wave of grassroots activism sweeps Cyprus”.

It is no coincidence that Myrto, Evi and Thea are all women. It is often women who start the resistance in case of an attack that threatens the community. This is also the case in Cyprus, where strong female activists led the way in the struggle for environmental justice.

This Author

V’cenza Cirefice is an activist with Young Friends of the Earth Ireland and Young Friends of the Earth Cyprus who has a special interest in issues gender and environmental justice. The EnvJustice research project studies and contributes to the global environmental justice movement.

Much has been made of the benefits of engaging with and learning in the outdoors.  The evidence for the positive impacts both to education and child development is compelling and the need in our young people is, sadly, growing. 

One of my most vivid memories from primary school is sitting under a horse chestnut tree in the heat of summer, its vast canopy casting a welcome shade over a class of excited six year olds, sorting leaves into piles. That memory is now some 45 years old and yet it has stayed with me above all the clamour and noise of my youth. 

These memories can be powerful for us all, imprinting on our formative years and creating a sense of amazement, belonging even.  I often wonder whether those classes in the outdoors were the beginning of my own affinity with the natural world.  

Active childhood

It breaks my heart to read that one in ten young people has a mental health problem, and that 28 percent of our young people are overweight or obese. 

Childhood should be a time of carefree enjoyment, when our children should be active and bursting with energy.  It seems odd then that despite our understanding of these issues and the obvious benefits of outdoor learning, it is still not mainstream in our schools.

Trees are thankfully not just memories for me but part of my work as an Environmentalist and Chief Executive of the National Forest Company. Here, we decided to see how many of the 88 primary schools in the 200 square miles of forest (which spans parts of Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire in the UK) are involved in regular outdoor learning – that is, learning in a natural setting at least once a month.  

What we found was that even in these 200 square miles of the Midlands where the natural environment is high up the agenda, less than a fifth of our primary schools met the standard and, not surprisingly, those that did were ones with extensive grounds, greater resources or their own transport.  

This situation seems to be mirrored across the whole country, where there are pockets of excellent work going on but, overall, provision is very patchy.  

School improvement

When you dig down into the reasons we don’t mainstream outdoor learning, it gets more complicated.  Some will say that the National Curriculum doesn’t really prioritise outdoor learning or that it is not a prerequisite for an outstanding Ofsted rating, others that it is too expensive to take children off-site or that there simply isn’t time in the day.  

Of course, all of these are true to some extent, but are they really the barriers holding us back?  I can’t help feeling that the problem is actually more systemic – we don’t do it simply because we haven’t done it, not because it isn’t possible.  What we have failed to do is to embed outdoor learning in the fabric of teaching within schools.

I would argue that as environmentalists, we have focused too much on delivering the teaching and not enough on really enabling the schools to do it themselves.

We asked ourselves in the National Forest what would happen if we helped build capacity within our primary schools by training the teachers to lead the sessions, creating outdoor learning areas in the schools or in woodlands within walking distance, and bringing outdoor learning into school improvement plans.

This evolved into a simple Five Point Plan designed to target funds to what we felt would make outdoor learning sustainable.  It’s so simple that we think every school in the country could adopt it – with a little support, guidance and modest funding.  No waiting for changes to the National Curriculum, no worries about travelling off-site, and no reliance on having to find transport.  

Future environmentalists

The Plan is being launched by the new Forestry Minister, David Rutley MP, and the former Education Secretary, the Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP in the House of Commons on 23 October 2018.            

So, the challenge is on, and so far the Plan is working.  We’ve doubled the number of schools with regular provision – from less than 20 percent  to more than 40 percent – with others taking on more frequent outdoor learning activity.  

Next year we think we’ll reach 50 percent of schools, and from there to 100 percent within five years.  That will be pretty amazing – that every school child in the National Forest will grow up experiencing regular outdoor learning.  

And who knows what difference this will make?  We hope it will be a catalyst to create a generation that understands and cares; for schools to want to take children off-site or on residential stays; for more bushcraft and family activities out of school; for better teacher training with our local universities; for governors and school leaders to champion the benefits; and ultimately a catalyst for children to grow up healthier and happier. 

If we succeed, I’m convinced we will be creating the environmentalists of the future and, no doubt, making more memories that will last a lifetime.  

Further details and the National Forest Five Point Plan can be found here.

This Author

John Everitt is a British environmentalist who has spent more than 25 years in nature conservation. He is the chief executive of the National Forest Company, responsible for coordinating the creation and management of the 200 square mile National Forest in the Midlands, UK. Stay updated by following @NatForestCo on Twitter. 

The first accelerator programme of its kind finding and commercialising the best new circular economy start-up business innovations has been launched, according to an announcement from the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB).

The accelerator, run by LWARB’s Advance London programme, is focussed for this first accelerator is the built environment sector and is calling for applications from interested entrepreneurs.

Advance London is working with partners The Carbon Trust and Whole Earth Futures to deliver the accelerator, which will offer six months of free intensive support for up to 10 start-ups. Each start-up will already have a working prototype and be ready to test their technologies in the market.

Scaling-up innovations

As part of the support package, desk space will be provided in LWARB’s new offices, together with bespoke mentoring and access to their extensive partner network. The aim is to enable the rapid scaling up of innovations.

This first cohort of start-ups will be focused on circular economy within the construction industry, developing new technologies and business models that can advance concepts such as: modularisation; design for disassembly and re-use; technology to prolong asset life; alternative materials and material re-use; turning products into services; and the creation of data platforms. 

Start-up businesses will be selected on their potential to scale up and contribute to London’s low carbon, circular economy.

This marks another step in the Advance London programme strategy of supporting the best circular economy SMEs in London and builds on LWARB’s growing expertise and partner network. The accelerator will also leverage LWARB and London’s existing strengths in the technology, finance, academic and start-up sectors.

Applications will open next week commencing 22nd October, and interested start-ups are encouraged to get in contact now through the Advance London website. 

Supporting entrepreneurs 

Wayne Hubbard, Chief Executive at London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB), announced the accelerator at the P4G Summit in Copenhagen today. He said: “If cities are the engine rooms of the circular economy, start-ups are the spark.

“Start-up businesses are making an essential contribution to London’s transition to become a circular city, and this accelerator is part of LWARB’s strategy to provide support and finance to circular economy businesses from start-up to maturity.

“The recent IPCC report has shown us the need for urgent action – this support programme forms a part of our response.”

Supporting innovation within the low carbon economy and developing the start-up ecosystem are core pillars of the Mayor of London’s Environment Strategy and Economic Development Strategy. 

A dedicated circular economy accelerator will help new entrepreneurs overcome some of the barriers to establishing products and services within their market, and help make London’s economy more sustainable.

Vital role

Shirley Rodrigues, the deputy mayor for environment and energy, said: “The Mayor is working hard to make London a world leader in efforts to promote a circular economy, which could provide London with net benefits of at least £7 billion every year and 40,000 new jobs by 2036.

“The International Panel on Climate Change is clear: action on climate change cannot wait and circular economy businesses of all sizes and sectors have a vital role to play.

“This accelerator is a great opportunity to nurture London’s start-up businesses and help our low carbon economy flourish.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from London Waste and Recycling Board.

The free market International Policy Network (IPN) was launched amid much fanfare in 2001 with Julian Morris and Roger Bate at the helm. Almost immediately John Blundell, the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs and an IPN board member, closed down the Environment Unit.

The war against climate science was about to embark on a new journey, with a purpose built think tank ready to take to the front line. The IPN would try and convince the world that free market economics – and climate denial – were in the interests of the poorest people and the most impoverished countries.

The IPN tried at first to keep its funding from ExxonMobil and British American Tobacco secret, fearing journalists would not take them seriously if the vested interests of their financial backers were known. And it was only a few years before Morris and Bate apparently fell out – with Bate being the first of the three men to leave for the United States.

Morris and Bate were long-term friends and started a company together, and were known to most people in the sceptic community as a brilliant double act. 

Intense and Obsessive

Professor James Tooley, a member of the IEA advisory council, worked closely with the two men at the IEA. He said: “Roger was definitely the boss at the time Julian took over.

“Roger came across as the most sophisticated, Julian was more sort of the person who pushed, who got things going, more solid – cerebral I think the word is.”

Roger Scruton, the popular philosopher once paid as a consultant to tobacco, describes his friend, Bate, as “a more serious intellectual”, “intense” and “obsessive”.

Bate, however, retained very close ties with climate denier Fred Smith at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in the US – funded by Philip Morris, Dow Chemicals and ExxonMobil – and his work at the environment unit appears to have been less than full time.

He described himself in 2000 as a fellow in International Policy at the CEI in Washington. Soon after, colleagues began to suspect that the close friendship between Bate and Morris was under strain.

Internal dispute

Dr Pennington, an academic advisor to the early environment unit, told me that there had been an “internal dispute” and the two men had “fallen out with each other”.

He added: “It just was dysfunctional… Roger was concerned about Julian Morris’s partner. They had different approaches, they just fell out like people in offices do.”

The relationships among the think tank staff were certainly intimate, which would have increased the potential for personal disputes.

Bate was, around this time, registered as living in Cambridge with his lover, Lorraine Mooney, the company secretary at his charity, the European Science and Environment Forum.

Workplace gossip

But, whispered gossip began to circulate around the office that Bate was concerned about the quality of work delivered by Morris’s wife and IPN employee, Kendra Okonski.

The accounts for the IPN show that, in 2005, the IPN was paying Okonski £28,000 and that she claimed £4,448 in expenses. Another member of the IPN staff said: “This is rumour… but Bate had disagreements with Julian over Kendra.”

Then, in 2003, the dispute appears to have reached an impasse as Bate resigned as a director of the IPN and moved to the United States.

The following year, he was earning $100,000 a year for a 30-hour week as chairman of Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), which was receiving $30,000 from ExxonMobil for “climate change outreach”.

Conflicts of interest

He was also hired as a fellow by the American Enterprise Institute, which enjoyed funding from Koch, Exxon and major tobacco companies, although he drifted away from the subject of climate change.

Julian Morris told me: “As usual, you get most of your facts wrong and make claims based on alleged hearsay that strike me as implausible.

“IPN was founded in 2001 with Roger and I as co-directors and John Blundell, Linda Whetstone and Mike Fisher as board members. As I recall, the IEA terminated the environment and technology programme when I moved over to IPN because the programme no longer had a director, not the other way round. Roger and I remained research fellows at the IEA for a while after that.

“Salaries at International Policy Network were determined by the organization’s board, not by me. I was not on the board in 2005. Kendra’s expenses were approved by the chairman, Linda Whetstone. We were very diligent to avoid such conflicts of interest.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

The debate about Brexit grinds on. Yet, when I took part in LBC’s Cross Question last week, the presenter Iain Dale bemoaned the lack of a public question on Brexit, despite the obvious potential in the panel for fireworks on the subject.

While there’s plenty of exhaustion around this topic, what’s also clear is that public knowledge about some of the key issues has grown enormously: the Northern Ireland border, single market versus customs union versus WTO rules, the risk to which we are putting UK citizens settled in the rest of Europe (and other EU states’ citizens here).

As there’s still much that’s little or unknown, I welcomed a request from the Renewable Energy Association to speak at UK Construction Week  on the potential impacts of Brexit on our future energy supplies.

Energy market

This all begins with an acronym (and I promise I’m only going to use one) – IEM: the Internal Energy Market. This body sets up the simplest possible mechanisms for energy to be exchanged across the Continent. With six percent (set to rise to 22 percent) of our electricity already coming from interconnectors across the Channel, the IEM is important.

Cooperation is a way in which we can balance our electricity supply by dealing with variability in demand in supply, something that will be increasingly important in future.

If we leave the IEM it doesn’t mean we can’t continue to get that power or balancing, but it will certainly be more complicated and more expensive – estimates range from £100m to £500m a year.

The other key issue is one that ties in with many others – energy efficiency and the essential growth of renewable energy sources to tackle the pressing issue of climate change.

Resource efficiency 

There’s been a lot of talk about the risk of chlorinated chicken and hormone-laced beef from the US, but less focus on the importance of maintaining standards for energy and resource efficiency on everything from vacuum cleaners to housing.

If our manufacturers want to maintain European markets, they’ll have to meet those standards, but imports won’t necessarily have to. That could mean more costs for consumers, more climate damage, and tougher times for our businesses.

These are technical issues, but they feed into an important point: a lot of the debate on Brexit has focused on the costs of leaving. But it is also important that we focus on the benefits of remaining – especially with fast-growing prospects of a People’s Vote in the coming months.

We saw how disastrous a negative campaign proved in 2016. What we need now is something different.

And if we look at the IEM and the energy standards we now enjoy as part of our membership of the EU, here’s part of the positive case for remaining in the EU.

Environmental standards

As with police and intelligence cooperation, even regulation of nuclear facilities and medicines, there can be few Leavers ideologically wedded to going it alone when the benefits of cooperation are so obvious and clear.

When we work together to maintain and improve standards, when we help each other out when we need it, cooperatively, with the minimum of borders and walls between us, we all benefit.

That’s true on food and environmental standards – people’s campaigns won a ban on fisheries discards and blocked the disastrous bee-killing neonicotinoids – and it is clearly true on energy supplies.

Going it alone now is a nonsensical move, in terms of costs, in terms of security and resilience, in terms of standing up against the power of multinational companies.

Information is power is a very old slogan – and it is important British people have this information as we struggle to find a way forward from where we are now. 

At the very least, we must educate ourselves and others about the basic frame of the IEM; know where the energy you need can come from, and how we can share ours with our neighbours, to the mutual benefit of all. That’s what a union can achieve.

This Author 

Natalie Bennett is a member of Sheffield Green Party and former Green Party leader.

British agriculture is getting a new settlement for the first time in three generations. The Agriculture Bill is going through parliament now and promises “public money for public goods”.

We at the Vegan Society were pleased with this announcement: this way, farmers will be rewarded for benefiting the wider world. But when we looked at the Bill, we found no detail, no promises and no guarantees.

At present, farmers are supported financially according to how much land they own. The government has called that system “arbitrary”.

Public goods

One expects, then, that the move to public money for public goods would be proportional: the more public goods, the more money.

It seems not. Under the current proposals, Farmer A may have the best farm ever for the environment and get almost nothing, while a highly pollutive, industrial Farmer B could receive lots of subsidies to continue to pollute.

There is no detail on how ministers should distribute funds in response to public goods. A list of public goods is given, but not actually tied to the funds. Moreover, funds can be given not only for providing public goods but also for “starting … agricultural activity”, with no qualifications that this should be beneficial at all.

There is a risk that the spirit of the public goods approach may have left the bill before its realisation.

If the principle of the bill really were public money for public goods, it would encourage a large shift away from animal agriculture and towards environmentally friendly, plant-based agriculture. 

Deep inefficiencies

Typically, farming animals is much worse for the environment and climate than growing crops. Beans, pulses, and legumes have benefits for conserving water, freeing up land, improving soil quality, and protecting biodiversity. Not only this – they have the power to mitigate climate change.

In contrast, UN figures indicate that globally, animal agriculture has a greater contribution to greenhouse gas emissions than all modes of transport combined: every car, plane, truck, ship, lorry, and so on.

That’s a surprising figure. It becomes less so when we observe that farming animals can produce large amounts of methane, require the production of feed, and involve deep inefficiencies.

After all, the overwhelming majority of the calories fed to animals is expended in keeping the animal alive, conscious, moving, and functioning. Only around 12 calories out of 100 are thought to be retained in the production of meat, dairy, and eggs. This results in more emissions, and more missed opportunities to feed our burgeoning population.

Growing crops for human consumption is kinder on the climate. If going vegan can reduce one’s food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, then a shift towards a plant-based agricultural system would do a world of good for the planet.

Shifting subsidies 

Growing crops for human consumption is not only greener and cleaner. It is also conducive to our self-sufficiency.

Plant-based agriculture uses only half the land required for producing animal products, evidence suggests. So if we eat more plant-based food, our land can be used to grow more food, and there is greater potential for the UK to cut reliance on imports and grow more of what it eats.

This would carry some environmental benefit in itself, reducing food miles. But it also highlights how the vegan movement can support farmers at home. We should remember that vegans also support farmers, and typically, they strive to protect the environment on which farming so depends.

The Vegan Society’s campaign Grow Green calls for subsidies to be shifted to encourage the plant protein industry. Crops such as beans, pulses, and legumes are healthy, sustainable, affordable, and ethical. They are wonder crops from a policy point of view. We used to grow much more of them, and some are suitable for growing across the UK.

Now that the Bill is at committee stage, we hope that pragmatic MPs will see the need for a more plant-based system. For now is the time for change. Two days before the Bill’s second reading, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) handed the world just twelve years to deal with our climate crisis. They called for agriculture to change, citing the need for “rapid and far-reaching” changes in land use.

Ministers must listen to this. And they must hand farmers the right tools to protect our climate, if they are to secure the bright future that they have promised.

This Author

William Gildea is a campaigns and policy officer at The Vegan Society, an educational charity.