www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

The BBC’s speculatively-titled story “Chancellor looks to green budget” is pretty thread-bare, starting with the opening line:

Green taxes and measures to help people struggling to pay energy bills are likely to be among changes in the chancellor’s first Budget on Wednesday.

It goes on to speculate that the chancellor, Alistair Darling, might put a levy on larger vehicles like people carriers, putting their price up by £2000.

And that’s it!

Well, if that’s all the chancellor can do for green issues in the UK Budget on Wednesday then that’s pretty poor for helping people go green. Isn’t a people carrier a more efficient way of carrying 6 or 7 people than having to drive 2 vehicles? If there’s any truth in that rumour then it would be a right poke in the eye for people who car-share.

We understand putting taxes on the least fuel efficient vehicles, but isn’t that why some people pay more road tax than others and why inefficient vehicles cost more to run purely from the fact that their MPG is so poor?

Come on Darling, where’s the incentives to go green. Saying “you can’t do this” or “can’t do that” is simply negative. Why don’t you give us:

• Increased grants for home solar projects
• Increased grants for home insulation
• More green spaces for community allotments
• Increase tax on the most polluting vehicles
• Greater taxes on polluting businesses
• A stop on the expansion of any more UK airports
• Serious public debate over nuclear energy

etc etc

That would be a good start. He’s already effectively nationalised the Northern Rock bank, why can’t he part-nationalise some of our public transport to stop the greedy private companies from milking the public?

Let’s wait until Wednesday, aye?

Globalisation is a fascinating concept: you buy goods that are cheap because they were made in a country where the production costs are lower and then you wonder why the company down the road making the same local goods at local prices goes out of business!

Seriously though, that may be a bit harsh as there are (some) good sides to globalisation. Take, for instance, specialist software developers - we’ve had first hand experience that if you can’t find a local developer it’s OK that you go shopping in Australia and Holland if that’s where you find the exact skills you’ve been looking for.

But it’s the original opening scenario that is worrying and very topical - The United States, in desperate attempts to stave off a recession, is planning tax rebates to boost the economy. Individuals will get up to $600 and married couples up to $1200. Those couples with children will get an additional $300 per child.

Now this may seem surreal and a little sensationalist giving people back the money they paid to government, to the tune of $100 billion for households and $50 billion for business, so that they can spend more to then help their own economy. Will it boost the fortunes of the world’s (current) biggest polluter? Maybe, we’ll have to wait and see.

But what does this have to do with globalisation? The fact is that the tax plans have caused Asian markets to rally on the news. Why?

As somebody interviewed in that BBC news story remarked:

“The markets are reacting to news that Bush and Congress have agree[d] to accelerate tax rebates for US consumers so they can go out and buy more exports from Asia”

So it looks like the American economy does well by its own people buying boatloads of foreign goods. That seems to be a very precarious situation to be in and a huge green flag to encourage rampant consumerism in order to further even greater globalisation.

So what happens when the Asian economies develop to such an extent that their prices catch up with those in the West? Where do consumers buy their cheap goods? Does the economy stumble again? Is this a scary enough scenario to get everybody to buy local?

The ill-considered rush to provide biofuels for Europe & the world has led to a number of negative environmental issues.

Where biofuel was once seen as an easy alternative to producing greener vehicles, it was thought that simply fuelling the same old vehicles with “greener” fuel would be the answer to the CO₂ issues.

However the use of biofuel, mainly due to these negative issues, is almost negligible.

In particular the EU’s policy to provide 10% of its road fuel from plants has created a situation where, for instance, natural rainforest habitat in Indonesia has been destroyed to plant palm trees from which palm oil can be extracted. Unfortunately the gains in getting biofuel from palm oil are grossly offset by the loss of biodiversity and the orang-utan is under threat of extinction due to deforestation.

In some extreme cases there are reports of people being forced from their land by greedy companies who then plant palms for biofuel production.

The interesting change is that it’s not the traditional energy companies that are producing fuel - it’s now in the hands of food companies!

So Europe, quick to react to the situation of the biofuel craze, but slow on other markets for palm oil, is to revise its policies on biofuels. Stavros Dimas, EU Environment Commissioner, has said that Europe intends to clampdown on biofuels from palm oil where natural environment is destroyed & poor people are driven from their lands, by introducing a certification scheme.

The EU would do well to work closely with Friends of the Earth and work toward making ALL palm oil production sustainable and not just palm oil for biofuel purposes.

It looks like the deadlock at the UN Bali summit has been broken.

After two weeks of intense talks it would have been a shambolic waste of time, money and effort for the summit to end without an agreement, without a clear path, no roadmap to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

But which way did it go? What did the UN head, Ban Ki Moon, do to reach an agreement?

As we reported yesterday, the stalemate was between, chiefly, the US & Canada on one side, refusing to be held to strict reduction targets, and Europe & Australia on the other, keen to reduce emissions to certain targets. The second part of the issue was whether developing countries such as China & India with their burgeoning consumption and rapid climb toward the “western ways”. Whilst Europe would allow developing countries to have slimmer targets the US wished for them to be subject to the stricter curbs.

The outcome?

Apparently, right at the end of the conference, the US had signalled it would not sign to the agreement to the disdain of many delegates who jeered and booed the indication. Then at the last minute, the US agreed.

So what happens next?

The Bali Roadmap will mean that negotiations will continue over the next 2 years between the 192 ountries and hopefully we will get some commitment to actually cutting greenhouse gases. In the meantime, us citizens of the world can carry on doing our bit to cut our own emissions, live a greener lifestyle and hopefully the politicians will catch up with us soon.

The UNFCCC Climate Change talks in Bali are in their last day now, and although we’ve refrained from commenting on the 10 days of talks so far, the tension at the Bali summit is definitely increasing.

The whole point of the Bali Summit is for world leaders to produce a roadmap, a Bali Roadmap if you will, for environmental issues to be addressed on a global scale as a follow on to the Kyoto Protocol. Although some nations have not ratified the 1997/2005 Kyoto Protocol, i.e. they will not attempt to limit nor reduce their emissions, the Bali summit is an opportunity to get those nations onboard in, effectively, the second round after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

So how do the world’s nations stand as far as cutting emissions is concerned? Well, Europe is strongly in the FOR camp. Australia, under new leadership, although it never signed up to the original Kyoto agreement to cut emissions to 5.5% below 1990 levels by 2012, has now joined Europe.

Currently opposed to any cuts are the USA, Canada and Japan.

Just as Kyoto became International Law in 2005 to all its signatories, Bali is looking for 25-40% cuts in emissions by 2020. Europe and Australia are keen to be committed to these cuts whereas the US and Canada in particular are not. Japan believes they cannot achieve such reductions.

On the penultimate day the EU delegation threatened to boycott the US climate summit next month if the US did not commit to cutting emissions. The progress at these talks has been so slow that there is no guarantee of any agreements by the close of play today and the head of the UN has even expressed his intention to return to Bali in an attempt to save the summit and broker deals if no agreements are made today.

The US climate change summit comes ahead of America’s refusal to commit to Kyoto under the auspices that it would cost jobs and threaten the economy of the world’s (current) largest polluter. And yet back in September George Bush laughably claimed the USA as a world leader in combating climate change. Not yet your not, but maybe someday soon.

Gordon Brown has announced that he wishes to promote environmentally sustainable growth and environmental innovations.

• On Vehicle Excise Duty the most polluting cars will only need to pay £300 road tax this year and £400 from next year.
• The 2p fuel duty rise has been deferred for 6 months.
• Grants of up to £4000 will be available for pensioners installing insulation and heating in their homes.
• “Zero Carbon” homes up to a value of £500,000 will be exempt from stamp duty.
• Landfill tax will rise by £8 a year from April 2008.
• £50m has been pledged to prevent the destruction of the second largest rain forest in the world in central Africa.
• £800m is going to the Environmental Transformation Fund (jointly run by the international development and environment secretaries)
• Landfill Tax increases from £21 per tonne to £24 per tonne (except for inactive waste which stays at £2 per tonne)
• The Climate Change Levy, paid by commercial users and collected by utility companies, changes from:
• 0.43p per kwh to 0.441p per kwh for electricity
• 0.15p per kwh to 0.154p per kwh for gas
• 0.96p per kilogram to 0.985p per kilogram for LPG and similar fuels
• 1.17p per kilogram to 1.201p pre kilogram for other taxable commodities like coal.

Gordon Brown is expected to raise taxes substantially on “gas guzzling” cars for Wednesday’s budget.

Last year the chancellor’s “green budget” gave £35 reductions in car tax to smaller cars but only increased the tax on larger cars by £45, a figure less than the price of a tank of gas and far from being a deterrent to those who can afford to purchase, own and drive large cars, namely 4×4s and “soft-roaders” or “Chelsea tractors”, as these road-hogging fashion-accessory-cum-status-symbols have become known.

Some quarters believe that the road tax may double to £400 for inefficient vehicles, although falling well below the mark of £1000 demanded by green groups for the worst polluters. Friends of the Earth, for instance, have called for Gordon Brown to exercise substantial measures if he is to leave a “green legacy” as the chancellor.

He may also offer a few concessions to property owners who are prepared to “go green” with possible stamp duty land tax exemption for the purchasing of “zero-carbon” homes as he first hinted at in his pre-budget report.

Tens of thousands of people have marched through Mexico City to protest at the rising price of Tortillas.

Tortillas, the flat corn bread and staple diet item for many Mexicans, has risen in price by over 400%. Many people blame the rise in demand for corn on the bio-fuels market where corn is converted to ethanol and used as an environmentally-friendly fuel in the emerging US ‘green’ car market.

The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement allowed Mexico to receive cheap corn imports from the United States, but the demand for bio-fuels has diverted corn sales to the more lucrative ethanol production market and thus corn supply to Mexico is reduced and corn prices are up accordingly.

Not surprisingly, the tens of thousands who demonstrated in Mexico City were angry about the soaring costs of tortillas as there is the possibility of malnourishment amongst the poorest people in Mexico.

Mr Barroso’s Commission will have to sell its ideas to EU leaders

This just in from the BBC

The European Commission is due to demand a new “industrial revolution” when it unveils a wide-ranging set of proposals on energy and climate issues.

The EU’s civil service wants more investment in renewable energy, arguing that the old fuels have a political as well as clear environmental cost.

The need has been given greater urgency by Russia’s oil row with Belarus, which has hit EU states Germany and Poland.

The report is expected to demand 20% of energy comes from renewables by 2020.

Without such investment and energy efficiency measures, the report predicts that EU energy imports will rise from 50% of consumption to 65% by 2030, requiring increased reliance on potentially unpredictable sources.

EU - emissions and energy

While the report remains neutral on the issue of nuclear power, it does warn that any significant reduction - as planned by some EU states - will make the other objective of cutting greenhouse gas harder.

It is anticipated that the commission will call for a 20% reduction in such gas emissions by 2020.

The report is also due to include measures to open up the EU’s energy market, enabling the bloc’s 500m citizens to buy their gas or electricity from anywhere in Europe.

Analysts anticipate these are likely to cause some controversy.

The package of measures will have to be approved by European governments before it can come into force.

The launch will come at 1230 local time in Brussels (1130 GMT) at the end of a meeting of commissioners from the various European directorates.

Road block

In recent years the EU has been the most powerful political voice urging targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond the current Kyoto period, which expires in 2012.

But at the latest UN climate meeting its attempts to get new targets debated met with failure. The Commission is now likely to urge that all developed countries across the world adopt a goal of cuts in the order of 30% by 2020.

Critics say that demand is unfair because people in India and China pollute a fraction as much as individuals as those in the West.

The EU’s principle tool for achieving cuts within the union itself would be an enhanced Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

But that only affects businesses, leaving emissions from road transport and domestic heat and power unaffected.

A voluntary agreement under which car manufacturers promised to increase the efficiency of their products has not produced the results which the Commission wanted, and it may now propose a mandatory regime.

On the business side, the Commission is likely to propose an enhanced “unbundling” of energy supply across the continent in a bid to increase competition.

In the last three years it has raided the offices of energy firms it believed were operating uncompetitively, and warned 17 member states for failing to implement competition legislation; but it is poised now to go further.

New measures could also include breaking up the ownership of energy businesses to avoid conflicts of interest.

It may propose that companies generating electricity and distributing it would not be permitted to have owners in common; gas production companies would be divorced from pipeline operators.

Ministers are likely to debate the Commission’s proposals in March.

Today Gordon Brown, in what is expected to be his last Pre-Budget Report as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, laid out a couple of moves in the green direction.

1. The 3-year freeze on petrol duty is off as he announced a 1.25 pence rise in a litre of fuel at the pump from midnight tonight.
2. Doubling of air passenger duty on short-haul flights which will rise from £5 to £10 and £20 more for long-haul flights from 1st February 2007.
3. The treasury will extend the duty period on discounts for certain types of green fuel and announced a “package of measures to encourage the development of the biofuels market”
4. Brown mentioned plans to investigate building Britain’s first carbon-capture and storage plant.
5. Brown intends to promote the development of the global carbon market by expanding and strengthening the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
6. Within 10 years Brown expects every new home to be a zero-carbon home, with all new zero-carbon homes being exempt from stamp duty.
7. Legislation to ensure that microgeneration of power by householders is not subject to income tax on payments for surplus energy exported back into the grid.
8. Extension of the Landlords Energy Saving Allowance to the year 2015 and to corporate landlords.
9. Confirmation that landfill tax will rise from £24 a tonne to £27 a tonne from the 1st of April 2007 with sharper rises in landfill tax from 2008 onwards.

Well that’s a start but, as the Lib Dems pointed out, it appears that Brown is only setting aside 0.1% of GDP for rectifying the UK’s contribution to global warming & pollution whereas the Stern Report indicated 1% of GDP should be spent.
And that’s our quick summary, but if you want the in-depth data be sure to visit HM Treasury website to read more on the Pre Budget Report.