Industry News-Power station and refinery workers vote for strike action

Some of Britain's largest refineries and power stations face being shut down after workers voted to stage official action over the hiring of cheaper foreign labour.

The result of the ballot – to be revealed tomorrow to the employers, including BP and Shell – follows months of "wildcat" action sparked by the use of foreign contractors at Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire.

The vast majority of 7,000 of GMB union members at seven sites, which include the nuclear complex at Sellafield and BP's North Sea gas pipeline, have voted in favour of industrial action, the Guardian has learned. They want employers to allow unions to carry out full audits of the contracts of all 30,000 workers. Unions accuse companies of reneging on national collective pay deals by hiring workers, often from overseas, on lower wages.

Fellow union Unite, which represents the remainder of the workforce, has also been balloting its members. It is expected to announce the result next week, but members are also understood to have balloted overwhelmingly in favour of action. GMB will wait for the result of Unite's ballot
before taking action.

Union officials will meet employer representatives for talks, but workers' leaders are determined to take action to prevent the further erosion of the principle of collective pay bargaining. Employers counter that being prevented from hiring foreign staff for lower wages than agreed under collective pay deals obstructs the movement of labour in the European Union.

Employment lawyers said that companies could attempt to overturn the ballot in the high court, which would make the planned industrial action illegal. Victory for employers would seriously undermine the union movement by limiting the use of its ultimate sanction, the right to strike.

Marc Meryon, a partner specialising in industrial relations law at Bircham Dyson Bell, said: "This is a conflict between two rights in European law: one is the freedom of movement of labour and the other is the right to go on strike. Employers are likely to have been taking advice over whether unions can have a lawful strike over employing foreign contractors on lower wages."

Wildcat strikes swept Britain's construction and energy industries at the beginning of the year after Total hired about 100 Italian and Portuguese contractors at its Lindsey refinery. Total insisted it was paying them the same wages but British workers questioned why they were not employed instead. The use of foreign labour became more of a flashpoint in March when it emerged that power firm Alstom was paying Polishconstruction workers at its Isle of Grain plant, in Kent, £4.50 an hour less than their British counterparts. The Engineering Construction Industry Association (ECIA) said at the time that the "incident resulted from a misinterpretation". The ECIA, which will meet representatives from GMB and Unite , did not return calls from the Guardian.

The seven sites at risk are: BP's Forties pipeline facility at Grangemouth; the Ineos refinery at Grangemouth; Sellafield; Shell's refinery at Stanlow; RWE's power plants at Staythorpe in Nottinghamshire and Aberthaw in South Glamorgan; and Chevron's refinery in Pembroke.

The unions are negotiating a new three-year pay deal. Employers are said to have agreed to the principle of setting up a national skills register which unions believe would identify what type of training in Britain is most needed. Unions also want a unemployed workers' register which companies must use to fill vacancies. Employers are said to have also agreed to allow unions to audit their workforces' pay, "except in exceptional circumstances" which unions believe is an unacceptable caveat. "We don't trust them anymore," said one union source.

Employers are required to pay the minimum wage to foreign workers but many circumvent collective pay agreements by using subsidiary companies to hire them on a lower wage.

For the full article click here

Industry News-London brokers turn attention to green finance

Bonds providing a hedge against the risk of governments missing their climate commitments could give investors the necessary confidence to invest in low-carbon projects, Professor Michael Mainelli from Z/Yen, a City of London-based risk management firm, told EurActiv in an interview.

The biggest obstacle to investment in green projects is a general lack of confidence in government policy being enacted, Mainelli argued. He pointed out that when the EU's emissions trading scheme was inaugurated, politicians agreed that carbon prices need to stand at about €25-€30/tonne, but in reality, the market crashed in 2007 when too many permits were issued and the price is still nowhere near that.

High carbon prices are crucial to the profitability of renewable energy projects, the financial expert argued. "And they depend on government policy," he said, adding that policies such as feed-in tariff rates are equally important.

Mainelli presented the idea of index-linked bonds as a way for governments to guarantee investors that they will get a return on their low-carbon investments, regardless of whether the government keeps its climate pledges.

"The basic idea here is that governments would pay interest on their own debt, and they would pay more interest if they failed to meet their carbon targets," he said.

The targets of the bonds could vary, Mainelli said. He cited as examples carbon prices, where the government pays interest if carbon is below a set price, and feed-in tariffs, where the government pays if it does not maintain a set rate or fails to reach the country's emissions reduction target.

To illuminate the issue, Mainelli offered a scenario whereby a large pension fund puts €500 million euros into a wind farm that produces at €90/MWh, when the current price of electricity stands at €85/MWh. At the same time, it buys government bonds priced at a feed-in tariff of €110/MWh.

In case in reality the tariff turns out to be only €100, the investor's profit from the wind farm is only €10/MWh, instead of the expected €20, but it is making €10 on the French government.

The idea differs from many other bonds proposals in that it is simple and does not involve forfeiting returns out of concern for the climate, Mainelli stressed.

"What makes us really subversive - one of the things I find interesting as we've been chatting to governments - is that they begin to realise that they've got to put their money where their mouth is," Mainelli said. He argued that index-linked carbon bonds are analogous to inflation-linked bonds that governments had to start issuing in the beginning of the 1980s, when people lost confidence in their government's ability to control inflation.

"But of course the uncomfortable truth is that they just don't like it because if they fail to make their targets, then they'll have to pay a lot of interest," he added.

Nevertheless, as OECD governments prepare to issue $9 trillion in debt in the next three years due to the financial crisis, compared to only €18 trillion in the past 40 years, they are now seriously considering the idea, Mainelli said.

"So it's like any supply and demand situation: supply is going through the roof but demand is dropping. And the suppliers, the governments, are going to have to come up with interesting ways of selling their debt. And this is one of them," Mainelli concluded.

For the full article please click here

Political News-DECC appoint David Mackay as Chief Scientific Advisor

David MacKay, Professor in the Department of Physics at Cambridge University and author of the influential book ‘Sustainable Energy -without the hot air' has been appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The Chief Scientific Advisor’s role is to ensure that the Department’s policies and operations, and its contributions to wider Government issues, are underpinned by the best science and engineering advice available.

Professor MacKay said:

“Climate change and secure energy are two of the most urgent issues facing the UK and the global community. The solutions must be rooted firmly in the science and I look forward to advising the Government on how it can help deliver these important goals.”

Secretary of State Ed Miliband said:

“David MacKay is known for making science accessible and helping to explain clearly the urgency and the challenges of moving to a low carbon economy. I want him to bring all of these qualities to the job of advising DECC on how we can meet Britain’s carbon targets and energy security needs.”

Click Here to read ‘Sustainable Energy -without the hot air' by David Mackay

Client News - AWS contributes to Marine Energy Report calling for more marine energy in Scotland.

More than 12,000 jobs in marine renewables could contribute £2.5 billion to Scotland's economy by 2020, according to a report published today.

The industry-led Marine Energy Group study charts a course for wave and tidal power around Scotland, and highlights actions to build further success in the sector. Its recommendations, for Government and its partners, include:

A call for the Scottish Government to repeat its Wave and Tidal Energy Support scheme A review of grid infrastructure required to support growth A fresh look at the levels of support available under the renewables obligation Calls for the Treasury to do more to help the sector, including the release of the Fossil Fuel Levy surplus funds to help promote renewables in Scotland Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth John Swinney is in Orkney today where he will visit Stromness based marine energy company Aquatera.

Mr Swinney said: "With unrivalled marine resources and a range of wave, tidal and offshore wind development already underway, Scotland leads the way in generating energy from the sea.

The £10 million Saltire Prize continues to attract global interest in the marine energy potential around our coast. We also have publicly funded world leading testing facilities here in Orkney which are hosting wave and tidal devices built with Scottish Government support.

"Marine energy will be key to Scotland's future energy mix and that's why we changed our support mechanisms to give greater assistance to wave and tidal energy in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK.

"The report, put together by industry, highlights the actions it believes we need to deliver a commercial scale industry. It confirms there could be 12,500 Scottish jobs in marine renewables by 2020, a huge boost for the economy and a long term platform for sustainable growth.

"Industry recognises, as this Government has always believed, that the Treasury should unlock Scotland's share of the Fossil Fuel Levy - currently over £150 million - to allow us to give additional support to our renewables industry, the economy and environment.

"This report is an excellent example of collaboration in the public and private sectors. The recommendations are very much industry driven and we will consider their views very carefully as we continue to build a world leading renewables sector."

The Marine Energy Group is part of Forum for Renewable Energy Development in Scotland and works to accelerate delivery of a world leading marine energy industry to provide a contribution to the sustainable economy and environment of Scotland.

Its members are:

Sian McGrath, Aquamarine Power (co-chair) Lynne Vallance, Scottish Government (co-chair)

Mike Barlow, Scottish & Southern Energy

Graham Bibby, AWS Ocean Energy

Alistair Birnie, Subsea UK

Duncan Burt, National Grid

Robin Burnett, Airtricity [from June 2009] Morna Cannon, Scottish Renewables/Scottish Government Gareth Davies, Aquatera Karen Fraser, Scottish Government Phil Gilmour, Scottish Government Neil Kermode, EMEC Audrey MacIver/Elain Cameron, Highlands & Islands Enterprise Tom Mallows, The Crown Estate Robin McGregor, Lunar Energy/Christie Griffith Alan Mortimer, ScottishPower Renewables Paul Neilson, Scottish & Southern Energy Brian Nixon, Scottish Enterprise Paul O'Brien, Scottish Development International Matthew Seed, Wavegen Robin Wallace,

Political News-Miliband takes action on queue to connect new power generation to the grid

New rules to revamp the way power plants get connected to the UK’s power grid are proposed today by Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband.

The shake-up will help new projects waiting to get a date to feed electricity into the grid to get out of the queue, and will in particular help renewable energy projects such as wind farms.

There is currently over 60 GW of new generation capacity – around 200 projects – that are waiting to be connected to the grid, including around 17 GW from renewable sources.Ed Miliband announced as part of the Government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan in July that the Government would reform the previous system of projects getting a connection date on a first come, first served basis regardless of when the project would start generating energy. This meant some wind farms were given connection dates years after when they were due to start producing electricity. Today’s consultation offers industry a say on three options for how the new system will work.

The proposed scheme will also give investors confidence that projects will be given a connection date that fits in with their project development timeline.

Ed Miliband said:

“Access to the electricity grid has been one of the key barriers to the generation of renewable energy in this country. We are determined to resolve this issue. That is why we took powers to do so in the Energy Act and today we are setting out our proposals.

“We need these new projects to get hooked up to the grid as soon as they are ready – both to help tackle climate change and secure our future energy supplies.

“The government will do whatever is necessary to bring about the transition to a low carbon economy and to give investors the certainty they need so that new renewable energy generation is built.”

For the first time, the Government will be making the detailed reforms to grid access rules that are necessary to overcome the delays. Previously, reforms were proposed
by industry and then approved or rejected by the regulator, Ofgem.

There are three proposed models that DECC is consulting on from today that build on industry and Ofgem’s work over the last year.

The three models look at different ways to manage the queue and to share the cost of connecting more plants to the system that is to be expected from this system.

The models are:

1.Connect and Manage (Socialised): - costs will be shared between all users of the network.
2. Connect and Manage (Hybrid): A model that targets some, but not all, of the additional constraint costs on new entrant power stations.
3. Connect and Manage (Shared Cost and Commitment): A model that offers the choice to new and existing power stations to commit to the network (which is helpful to Grid in terms of long term management of system) in return for greater certainty over charges, or to opt out and be exposed to additional constraint costs.

Ofgem has already approved interim arrangements to help new power stations connect more quickly, and under these interim arrangements around 1 GW of renewable projects in Scotland have already been offered earlier connection dates. However this was only ever intended as an interim measure and Government is intervening to ensure enduring access arrangements are put in place by June next year. This will be essential for investor confidence that we have a long-term and sustainable framework in place.

Click Here to view the full consultation

Political News-Irish ‘No to Lisbon’ camp faces an 'uphill struggle' say experts

As Ireland’s second vote on the Lisbon Treaty nears, concesssions won by the Irish government coupled with a resurgent civil society ‘yes’ movement could see the ‘No to Lisbon’ camp face an uphill struggle in the coming weeeks.

Background:

Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June 2008 effectively stalling the reforms contained in the treaty and causing widespread consternation among European politicians.

Following the result of the referendum, the Irish government conducted detailed research into why the public voted against the treaty and found concerns over military neutrality, the potential impact on Ireland's corporate tax rates, workers' rights and ethical issues related to the position of the family and abortion. Question marks over whether Ireland would lose its European commissioner were also said to be of concern.

Leaders meeting in Brussels in December 2008 agreed to find a legally-binding solution to clear up confusion over how the treaty would affect Ireland in the hope that this would allow a second referendum.

Following June’s European elections, where only one of Ireland’s 12 MEPs was elected on an anti-Lisbon platform, EU leaders reached a compromise in offering Ireland legally-binding guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty without requiring other countries to re-ratify the text.

The Irish government set Friday 2 October as the date for the second referendum.There is a precedent for Ireland having a second vote on a European treaty, as two referenda were required to pass the Nice Treaty.

With the second referendum six weeks away, both pro and anti-Lisbon campaigns are grinding into gear. While many of the 2008 arguments from both sides are being re-circulated this time around, experts told EurActiv that the political backdrop to this year’s referendum is profoundly different to that of last year.

According to the sources, who did not wish to be named given the politically sensitive nature of the current debates, many of the grounds for argument raised by the ‘no’ camp in 2008 are no longer in play, given that the guarantees and concessions granted to Ireland by EU leaders appear to have assuaged many of the fears expressed by Irish ‘no’ voters last June.

As a result, they indicated, the ‘no’ campaign could face an 'uphill struggle' to recreate its 2008 success.Given the changed context, the ‘no’ camp will largely have to base its arguments on issues they feel have not been addressed by the EU guarantees, using, in particular, workers’ rights as a spearhead for its campaign.

Indeed, the combined ‘no’ campaign was launched earlier this week with a warning that the treaty would leave workers worse off and more exposed to spending cuts.

A profoundly undemocratic document says ‘no’ camp

Speaking at the launch, Ireland’s sole anti-Lisbon MEP, Socialist Joe Higgins, argued that the Lisbon Treaty “is a profoundly undemocratic document, which seeks to turn right-wing economic policies into the only show in town”.

According to the MEP, if Lisbon is passed, “the EU Commission would uphold the right of big business to profit from public services, over and above the rights of workers to take action to defend these services”.

However, Andrew Byrne, Chief of Operations for pro-Lisbon advocacy group Ireland for Europe, dismissed the ‘no’ camp’s claims, arguing that its “scattergun approach” continues to falsely portray Lisbon as part of a “neoliberal economic agenda”.

According to Byrne, the ‘no side’ “will continue to misrepresent and distort the truth, playing on peoples’ fears and anxieties”.

Groundswell of groups adds legitimacy to ‘yes’ camp

But pro-Lisbon Byrne believes that despite what he sees as the fear-mongering on the ‘no’ side, the emergence of a plethora of civil society ‘yes’ bodies are giving a stronger legitimacy to the overall pro-Lisbon campaign.

“You only have to look at the number of groups out there to see that there is a groundswell of people who are not part of the normal political scene, who care about the future of the country and feel that Lisbon is a big part of that,” he said.

This “shows that there are people throughout Ireland who feel this issue is too important to leave to politicians and traditional groups”.

Byrne argued that the proliferation of civil society ‘yes’ groups “takes the wind out of the ‘no’ camp’s sails”, in that “it doesn’t allow the ‘no’ groups to paint Lisbon as merely an ambition of the political establishment”.

“We’re making the point to people that there is a new deal on the table and their concerns have been addressed. The loss of the Commissioner, for example, was a huge concern to people,” said Byrne.

The Ireland for Europe representative concluded that in his opinion, the ‘no’ camp is weaker this time around, but urged against “complacency,” among pro-Lisbon activists, arguing that all groups should remain active on the ground until the referendum.

Political News-Policy decisions on waste management need to support Ireland’s competitiveness

The 2009 update of the Forfás waste benchmarking report published today (Wednesday, 19 August 2009) confirms that Ireland continues to perform poorly relative to a selection of competitor countries and regions in meeting the waste management needs of enterprise. Waste management charges are higher in Ireland than in comparator countries, progress on developing new facilities is slow and we have a heavy reliance on landfill.

Declan Hughes, Competitiveness Division Manager, Forfás said, “In the context of the unprecedented challenges facing the Irish economy and the need to ensure that businesses operating in Ireland are competitive to support sustainable, export-led growth, policy decisions in relation to waste management infrastructures and costs need to support national competitiveness as well as environmental sustainability policy objectives”.

“To improve Ireland’s waste management performance and to ensure the provision of cost competitive, environmentally friendly waste management services to business, we need to address the barriers to infrastructure investment, such as reducing planning delays, joining up regional waste plans and ending the high level of uncertainty about the future direction of waste policy,” he continued.

The Forfás report advocates that a decision on the future regulatory structure for the waste sector should be taken that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the State in the regulation and provision of waste management services at national, regional, and local level.

Other policy priorities identified by the report include the need to coordinate multiple regional waste management plans, to reduce planning lead times and to ensure that waste services are competitively priced.

Due to cost implications for business, the report recommends against further significant increases in the landfill levy and the introduction of an incineration levy, or a cap on incineration, until such time as adequate new alternative waste treatment facilities are operational. The report recommends the need for policy to focus on how favoured waste treatment solutions can be made more competitive.

The report also recognises the need for the State support agencies and enterprise to continue to work together to ensure that Ireland matches comparator countries in reducing the amount of waste generated.

Key Findings and Conclusions

* Ireland continues to have a relatively high reliance on landfill for waste treatment and Irish companies continue to have a limited choice of waste treatment solutions compared to their competitors. In 2007, almost two thirds of municipal and industrial waste was landfilled, putting Ireland in the bottom three of the ten countries/regions benchmarked. Despite significant gains in the past decade in improving Ireland’s recycling level, the levels of recycled municipal waste remained unchanged over the two year period 2006 and 2007.

* The cost of waste management in Ireland remains high when compared to competitors. While the market price for landfill gate fees has dropped more recently, landfill costs remain among the most expensive of the benchmarked countries/regions. Biological waste treatment fees in Ireland are the most expensive of the benchmarked countries/regions.

* Waste management infrastructure rollout in Ireland remains slow. A range of infrastructures necessary to meet Ireland’s waste management requirements need to be accelerated including: thermal treatment capacity to recover energy from municipal and industrial waste; thermal treatment or landfill capacity for hazardous waste; biological treatment (composting, anaerobic digestion) and reprocessing capacity for recovered materials (e.g. paper, glass, plastic, metal recycled materials).

Policy priorities from the report

Ireland’s comparatively poor performance in the cost and availability of waste management highlights the key policy challenges that need to be addressed to ensure waste is managed in an environmentally effective and cost efficient way. The international waste review by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which has been ongoing since July 2008 is vital to creating this policy certainty and addressing the barriers to infrastructure delivery but will need to take into account national competitiveness concerns.

The policy priorities which the Forfás report sets out are:

* Addressing the current high level of uncertainty about the future direction of waste policy which is leading to further delays in progressing infrastructure rollout (particularly private investment in waste infrastructure).

* Coordinating regional waste management plans to maximise economies of scale and enable the market to offer more competitive pricing to businesses and households. Ireland’s regionally based waste planning framework is hindering the delivery of cost effective, commercially viable waste treatment options as it tends to result in smaller scale, less commercially viable facilities than would be the case if infrastructure planning were done at a national level.

* Due to the already high cost of landfill in Ireland it is critical from a cost competitiveness perspective that further increases in the landfill levy are not introduced until adequate alternative waste treatment facilities are operational and that any incineration levy or cap on incineration should not be introduced until such time as adequate new alternative waste treatment facilities are well established and the use of landfill is reduced significantly. Consideration should instead be given to how favoured waste treatment solutions can be made more competitive
(for example, through the use of planning laws, development of relevant skills, research and development, etc.), rather than reducing the cost competitiveness of already high cost landfill.

* Continuing to fast track decisions on strategic infrastructure projects, including those in the waste management sector is of key importance. Delays in the planning process have had a negative impact on the timely delivery of key waste management infrastructure. While the introduction of the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006 has been a welcome step in addressing this issue, it is too early to determine if it has led to an improvement in planning timelines. The introduction of a specialist "Infrastructure Court", to deal with medium to large-scale planning and
construction cases, modelled on the successful Commercial Court (a list of the High Court that handles commercial cases of high value), could assist in cutting time and costs of delivery of our much-needed infrastructure.

* Continued and enhanced efforts will be required by Government Departments, agencies and business representative associations to ensure that businesses are fully aware of how best to exploit waste management reduction processes and technologies. Given that many organisations are already working with companies on a range of energy efficiencies, pollution prevention or resource conservation initiatives, continued efforts should also be made to develop a more integrated approach across a range of related issues.

Industry News-Green light for Cheshire waste fuelled power station

A new 95 Mega Watt power plant capable of turning 600,000 tonnes of waste each year into electricity and heat, to be built at Ince in Cheshire,was approved by the Government today.

The waste, which would have otherwise gone to landfill, will instead be used to generate electricity to power a new Resource Recovery Park.Excess electricity will also be exported to the National Grid.

The approval follows a public inquiry held into both the power plant and the Resource Recovery Park, which recommended that consent should be granted for the construction and operation of the plant and also that planning permission be given for the Resource Recovery Park.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Hunt said:

“We need to increase our use of renewable energy and to find solutions to the UK’s waste problem. This power plant will convert over half a million tonnes of waste each year into energy.

“The Inspector recommended the power plant be granted consent after a thorough public inquiry. I am satisfied that the mitigation measures to be put in place will protect the amenity of local villages.”

The separate planning permission for the Resource Recovery Park was also given today by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, John Denham.

Political News-New Inquiry Adapting to climate change

Most of the changes in climate that will happen over the next 30 to 40 years have already been determined by past and present emissions of greenhouse gases. This means that changes in our climate are inevitable, even if we can successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

The kind of changes we could see include warmer and wetter winters, hotter and drier summers, sea level rise, and more severe weather events such as storms, floods, droughts and heat waves. Adapting to climate change is the process of building resilience and preparing households, businesses, infrastructure, public services and vulnerable parts of our society to cope with the impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of any new opportunities that result.

The Committee has commissioned a review from the National Audit Office (NAO) on climate change adaptation (see http://www.nao.org.uk/what_we_do/support_to_parliament/select_committees.aspx).

This provides an overview of climate change adaptation policy in England, including the implications of the Climate Change Act 2008, the cross-government 'Adapting to Climate Change' programme and the current capacity across Government Departments to assess and manage risks to their objectives from future climate change impacts.

The NAO's review is the starting point for a new inquiry into adaptation that is launched today. The purpose of the inquiry is to assess whether the Government is on the right path to embedding effectively climate change adaptation, and management of risks from future climate change impacts, into Government programmes, policies and decision making, and into those of the wider public and private sectors.

The Committee will also examine whether climate change adaptation is being sufficiently funded and supported as a challenge for the long-term and the extent to which short-term pressures could prevent effective adaptation.

In particular the Committee is interested in receiving written evidence that looks at:

* the extent to which the Adapting to Climate Change Programme will increase resilience by embedding adaptation and climate change risk assessment into the work of Government Departments;

* the extent to which Government departments have identified the risks from a changing climate that will stop them from meeting their objectives;

* the suitability of the processes and structures in and across Government departments for identifying, mitigating and managing these risks and determining the future
priorities of central government's approach to adaptation (and the National Adaptation Programme);

* how well the overall direction for work on adaptation has been set, the effectiveness of the statutory framework (including the use of the Reporting Power and its accompanying statutory guidance),
the allocation of powers and duties and how well issues like social justice are addressed in adaptation policies;

* whether short-term priorities for action including identifying and protecting key infrastructure and systems
(for example power, food, water, transport infrastructure, defence and security), have been identified and how these are or might be addressed;

* the funding, support, training and other resources available, including at a local and regional level, for:

o building capacity to adapt to climate change

o specific actions to adapt to climate change, such as investment in flood risk management or the resilience of critical national infrastructure

o helping individuals and organisations conduct their own climate change risk assessments and judge what actions they need to take;

* the monitoring and evaluation of work on adaptation, including thoughts on how progress on adaptation can be quantified and success measured;

*the effectiveness of communication within and between departments; and between government, local government, business and the general public on adaptation;

* whether work on adaptation should be embedded into existing sustainable development frameworks and, if so, how this might be achieved.

Responses dealing with one or two of the issues above are as welcome as more wide ranging responses. Those responding to this call for evidence are encouraged to look at the work done for the Committee by the NAO

(see http://www.nao.org.uk/what_we_do/support_to_parliament/select_committees.aspx).

The Committee invites organisations and members of the public to submit written evidence setting out their views on these issues. Submissions should be sent to the Committee by Monday 5 October 2009.

For full details and to see the committee website please click here

Indutry News-Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast

Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries

In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.

But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.

In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil – mostly in the Middle East – would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010.

"One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day," Dr Birol said. "The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously," he said.

"The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about 40 per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future," he said.

There is now a real risk of a crunch in the oil supply after next year when demand picks up because not enough is being done to build up new supplies of oil to compensate for the rapid decline in existing fields.

The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.

"If we see a tightness of the markets, people in the street will see it in terms of higher prices, much higher than we see now. It will have an impact on the economy, definitely, especially if we see this tightness in the markets in the next few years," Dr Birol said.

"It will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years' time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices," he told The Independent.

In its first-ever assessment of the world's major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was "patently unsustainable", with expected demand far outstripping supply.

Oil production has already peaked in non-Opec countries and the era of cheap oil has come to an end, it warned.

In most fields, oil production has now peaked, which means that other sources of supply have to be found to meet existing demand.

Even if demand remained steady, the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030, Dr Birol said.

"It's a big challenge in terms of the geology, in terms of the investment and in terms of the geopolitics. So this is a big risk and it's mainly because of the rates of the declining oil fields," he said.

"Many governments now are more and more aware that at least the day of cheap and easy oil is over... [however] I'm not very optimistic about governments being aware of the difficulties we may face in the oil supply," he said.

Environmentalists fear that as supplies of conventional oil run out, governments will be forced to exploit even dirtier alternatives, such as the massive reserves of tar sands in Alberta, Canada,which would be immensely damaging to the environment because of the amount of energy needed to recover a barrel of tar-sand oil compared to the energy needed to collect the same amount of crude oil.

"Just because oil is running out faster than we have collectively assumed, does not mean the pressure is off on climate change," said Jeremy Leggett, a former oil-industry consultant and now a green entrepreneur with Solar Century.

"Shell and others want to turn to tar, and extract oil from coal. But these are very carbon-intensive processes, and will deepen the climate problem," Dr Leggett said.

"What we need to do is accelerate the mobilisation of renewables, energy efficiency and alternative transport.

"We have to do this for global warming reasons anyway, but the imminent energy crisis redoubles the imperative," he said.

Oil: An unclear future

*Why is oil so important as an energy source?

Crude oil has been critical for economic development and the smooth functioning of almost every aspect of society. Agriculture and food production is heavily dependent on oil for fuel and fertilisers. In the US, for instance, it takes the direct and indirect use of about six barrels of oil to raise one beef steer. It is the basis of most transport systems. Oil is also crucial to the drugs and chemicals industries and is a strategic asset for the military.

*How are oil reserves estimated?

The amount of oil recoverable is always going to be an assessment subject to the vagaries of economics – which determines the price of the oil and whether it is worth the costs of pumping it out –and technology, which determines how easy it is to discover and recover. Probable reserves have a better than 50 per cent chance of getting oil out. Possible reserves have less than 50 per cent chance.

*Why is there such disagreement over oil reserves?

All numbers tend to be informed estimates. Different experts make different assumptions so it is under- standable that they can come to different conclusions. Some countries see the size of theiroilfields as a national security issue and do not want to provide accurate information. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. A further factor is the expected size of future demand for oil.

*What is "peak oil" and when will it be reached?

This is the point when the maximum rate at which oil is extracted reaches a peak because of technical and geological constraints, with global production going into decline from then on. The UK Government, along with many other governments, has believed that peak oil will not occur until well into the 21st Century, at least not until after 2030. The International Energy Agency believes peak oil will come perhaps by 2020. But it also believes that we are heading for an even earlier "oil crunch" because demand after 2010 is likely to exceed dwindling supplies.

*With global warming, why should we be worried about peak oil?

There are large reserves of non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands of Canada. But this oil is dirty and will produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide which will make a nonsense of any climate change agreement. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. If we are not adequately prepared for peak oil, global warming could become far worse than expected.

For the full text of this article please click here

Industry News-EU mulls extending green criteria beyond biofuels

The European Commission has begun consultations on tackling indirect land-use change caused by agro-fuel production, floating the idea that such criteria could be applied more generally to a range of other agricultural commodities.

Background:

In December 2008, EU leaders reached agreement on a new Renewable Energy Directive, which requires each member state to satisfy 10% of their transport fuel needs from renewable sources, including biofuels, hydrogen and green electricity by 2020.

The directive also established sustainability criteria for biofuels. It obliges the bloc to ensure that biofuels offer at least 35% carbon emission savings compared to fossil fuels. The figure rises to 50% as of 2017 and 60% as of 2018.

However, concerns have been raised that increased biofuels production would result in massive deforestation and have severe implications for food security, as energy crops replace other land uses (indirect land-use change).

The Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive agreed as part of the climate change and energy package in December last year require the Commission to compile a report "reviewing the impact of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions" and seek ways to minimise its impact.

The report could be accompanied by proposals on developing a concrete methodology for calculating indirect land-use changes, which could be applied to other commodities.

The EU's new Renewable Energy Directive obliges member states to ensure that 10% of their transport fuel comes from renewable sources, including biofuels,by 2020. The goal was aimed at contributing towards the bloc's climate goals, but questions have been raised about the unintended consequences of replacing large forested areas and food production with energy crops.

To address this issue, the directive requires the Commission to present a report by the end of 2010 on how such "indirect land-use changes" impact on greenhouse gases and whether they should be tackled.

But a consultation paper seen by EurActiv reveals that the EU executive is ambitiously planning to come up with a document and potentially a legislative proposal as early as next March. This is to ensure that member states can take them into account when submitting their nationalrenewable energy action plans by the end of June 2010.

The non-paper, drafted by the Commission's transport and energy (TREN) and environment DGs, lists several options to take into account the effects of land-use change. It shows that the Commission is considering addressing the general issue of land-use change instead of limiting its approach to biofuels.

The document suggests that the restrictions on land-use change applied to biofuels could be imposed on other commodities and consuming countries. This could be done by encouraging other administrations to adopt the same restrictions and by encouraging other industries to apply these on a voluntary basis, it states.

Moreover, the EU could require that goods sold on its market are tagged with labels stating compliance with the restrictions, the non-paper reads.

One alternative would be to conclude international agreements to protect "carbon-rich habitats" like rainforests in countries where cultivation patterns are likely to be affected, it states.

However, the Commission believes that such a general approach would require putting in place measures that stretch beyond the scope of the report required by the Renewables Directive, and would take more time to execute.

The rest of the document thus specifically concentrates on biofuels. The minimum required greenhouse gas savings already included in the directive could either be tightened or considered as an adequate "cushion", ensuring that the policy delivers an "acceptably high" greenhouse gas benefit, it says.

Finally, the document floats the idea of promoting differentiated consignments for individual biofuels.

For example, bonuses could be increased for biofuels which do not come from land, or additional sustainability criteria could be set for agro-fuels produced from crops that are likely to cause damaging land-use change. Furthermore, an indirect land-use change factor could be included when calculating greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, once a methodology has been adopted.

Indeed, the Commission is already consulting researchers about models that could explain the effects of biofuel production on indirect land-use change, according to sources close to the process. These should be presented around September, feeding into a stakeholder consultation in October.

The Commission has already organised separate meetings with member states to chart the field, and has invited comments from stakeholders by the end of this week (31 July).

International trade implications

In addition to comments on the feasibility, uncertainty and administrative burden of the proposed measures, the Commission is seeking feedback on the international trade implications of biofuel sustainability criteria.

During internal negotiations on the directive, Brazil and many developing countries threatened to challenge it before the World Trade Organisation. Major exporting countries fear that the EU will sneak in strict provisions to limit their access to its market, favouring domestic production.

As the directive has now been published, it provides a clearer framework of what both domestic agro-fuel producers and third-country importers can expect from the EU. It sets down clear-cut figures for future greenhouse gas savings which biofuels will have to achieve compared to traditional fossil fuels, and stipulates that biofuels produced from land with "high biodiversity value" cannot be counted towards the target.

"Brazil has raised the issue [of EU sustainability criteria] in some meetings," a WTO spokesperson told EurActiv. But he added that so far no WTO member had requested the organisation to examine the directive's compatibility with its rules.

However, the legislation's potential provisions on land-use change or even the definition of the concept of "land with high biodiversity value" increase the uncertainty. Eventually, these addutions to the directive could expose it to a challenge before the WTO, experts said.

Moreover, it is far from clear whether it is possible to calculate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from land-use changes.

"We question whether it's possible to come up with any macroeconomic model that is able to explain indirect land-use changes because of the production of biofuels. We don't believe this is possible, but we need to wait and see what science is going to deliver," said Rob Vierhout, secretary-general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association.

He argued that any model would also have to include the positive effects of biofuel production. For example, animal feed is produced as a co-product of biofuels, which reduces the need to expand soy production in third countries in order to export it to Europe, he said, adding that biofuel production is also proven to increase yield per hectare of land.

Hinting that heated debates lie ahead, campaigners against biofuels have described this as "creative accountancy".

For the full version of this article click here

Industry News-Latest protest leaves climate strategy twisting in the wind

From Shetland to the Isle of Wight, feelings run high as plans to transform the UK into a low-carbon economy hit further trouble.

Europe's largest onshore windfarm project has been thrown in severe doubt after the RSPB and official government agencies lodged formal objections to the 150-turbine plan, it emerged today.The setback adds to the problems facing the government's ambition to install 10,000 new turbines across the UK by 2020 as part of its plan to cut the carbon emissions causing climate change.

The proposed 550MW windfarm, sprawling across the centre of Shetland's main island, would add almost 20% to existing onshore wind capacity. But the objectors say the plans could seriously damage breeding sites for endangered birds, including a rare wader, the whimbrel, which was unexpectedly discovered by the windfarm developer's own environmental survey teams.

Other species at risk include the red throated diver, golden plover and merlin.

The RSPB heavily criticised the proposal from Viking Energy after initially indicating it could support the scheme. The RSPB also claims now that installation of the turbines could release significant carbon dioxide from the peat bogs affected, undermining the turbines' potential to combat global warming.

The group's fears have been endorsed by the government's official conservation advisers, Scottish Natural Heritage, and SNH has also objected to the "magnitude" of the scheme, claiming it could kill many of these birds through collisions with the 145-metre-high structures.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), which oversees pollution and waste laws in Scotland, has also formally objected, making it inevitable the scheme will now go to a full public inquiry and intensifying pressure on the developers to alter the scale of the project.

In a detailed critique of the proposal, Sepa has asked Viking Energy to significantly rethink its plans to cut out and dump up to 1m cubic metres of peat during construction, and asked ministers to impose tough conditions to protect local water quality and freshwater species .

Bill Manson, a director of Viking Energy, the community-owned company which is collaborating with Scottish and Southern Energy on the scheme, said it would be prepared to negotiate. "I believe there's a dialogue to be had, which will assuage their fears, I hope," he said.

A Scottish government consultation on the £800m scheme closed yesterday, with more than 3,600 of Shetland's 21,000 islanders signing a petition calling for the project to be scrapped.

The Shetland Amenity Trust, a local heritage and archaeological charity, and one of Scotland's major countryside access organisations, the John Muir Trust, have also objected, arguing that the proposal would have a "hugely damaging detrimental impact" on the treeless, hilly landscape.

The dispute has highlighted the conflicts arising over the siting of major windfarms on land, between the need to exploit the most windy locations and the desire to preserve the rural environment.

The government wants to have an additional 6,000 onshore and 4,000 offshore wind turbines installed by 2020 to meet its legally binding target of generating 15% of all energy from renewable sources. There are currently about 2,400 turbines.

ed Milliband, the energy and climate change secretary, has set out an ambitious plan to transform the UK to a low-carbon economy.

But the plans to change the planning system to make windfarm approvals quicker and give priority to renewable projects in granting national grid connections prompted significant criticism on the siting and cost of windfarms.Within a week, the newly formed National Association of Wind Action Groups pledged to campaign against the harmful impact of wind turbine developments on communities and landscapes.

Another blow came from the decision of Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas to close the UK's only blade manufacturing plant on the Isle of Wight. The company said the UK wind market was not growing fast enough and that projects had been slowed down by planning objections.Existing windfarms have 3,000MW of capacity, but another 9,600MW is in the planning process.

A further 6,000MW has planning permission but no funding and on Monday the government announced a £1bn loan package to try to fill that funding gap. It argues that the UK has the largest potential for wind power in Europe and already has more offshore wind installed than any other country. Miliband has said that climate change poses a greater threat to landscapes than windfarms and that opposing them should be "socially unacceptable".

Scotland is already home to more than half the UK's onshore wind capacity and Shetland is a key location. The islands reputedly experience the highest and most consistent wind speeds of any comparable place on earth. One small turbine at Lerwick, known as Betsy, is believed to be the world's most productive, reaching 59% of its potential output.

The Viking scheme, if approved by ministers, would alone generate a fifth of Scotland's domestic electricity needs and earn up to £37m a year in profits for Shetland. Manson said yesterday that the scheme had to be large-scale for the energy regulator and National Grid to agree to lay the £300m interconnector cable that would carry the electricity to the mainland. A scheme even half its current size would not be commercially viable.

But opponents claim that the scheme is far too large and that, with a further 62 miles of access roads, it would significantly affect a fifth of the main island's desolate interior and industrialise the landscape."We can't simply build our way out of climate change," said John Hutchison, chairman of the John Muir Trust."It is both cheaper and less destructive to reduce energy need and waste, rather than cover the wild landscapes that define Scotland and its people with wind turbines."

For the full version of this article in the guardian please click here

Political News-Ed Miliband Guardian Article One giant leap for a greener Britain

Only an Apollo-like effort of imagination and action will help us move to a low carbon economy

Forty years since the Eagle landed on the moon, the idea of a new Apollo project has become shorthand for how we should tackle climate change: politics forcing through the technological limits, a decade-long push, and a nation unified for a shared goal. The Guardian's Manchester Report last week showed there are plenty of reasons for optimism about the technologies that can take us into the low-carbon future.

But like Apollo, the challenge of climate change is to combine political will with technological leapfrog – and, in fact, the political challenge is almost unparalleled in human history. We can't all be rocket scientists (or climate scientists), but every one of us is needed for the political moonshot of today.

If the world agrees to act on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in December, countries will need to maintain their radicalism not just for a year or two but for decades. There must be a consensus from the richest country to the poorest and from democracies to autocracies. When we all depend on each other's actions, the world can't afford climate free-riders.

At home, our consensus already stretches from businesses to trade unions and from the Women's Institute to MTV. But for the pace and breadth of change that is needed many more people must be won over to our cause – to make change themselves and to build a climate change consensus. Climate change denial is given short shrift, but we should not confuse widespread acquiescence for universal enthusiasm. Climate change champions face the classic test of take-off political movements: how to widen the circle of the committed without watering down the clarity of the message.

First, if we are in the persuasion business, all of us have to talk as much about the advantages of the low carbon choice as the disaster that awaits if we don't act. We don't do this enough.

Just look at energy. Two-thirds of the world's gas is in Russia and the Middle East, but renewable energy is homegrown and can help us stem a rising dependence on imports. In manufacturing, there is a thriving set of new industries dependent on low carbon and on ways of cleaning up old sectors, and a chance to build a broader-based economy. Only by making the transition, with government support, can we reap the benefits.

And let's use the moment and cause to think about how we design cities and towns to make it easier for people to enjoy greener space, use public transport and have a better quality of life.

Second, we need not just to appeal to people to change their lifestyles but make it easier for them to do so. Here government has a central role. What will make more people leave the car in the garage and take a bike to the train station? Not finger-wagging, but convenience. As Andrew Adonis, the transport secretary, pointed out last week, the Dutch town of Leiden has three times as much bike storage at its station as all the London terminals put together. In Holland a third of journeys to stations are by bike; in Britain it's 2%. And from bike racks to loft lagging, the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan is designed to help make it possible for people to find a better way.

Third, we need to win some big and difficult arguments to create consensus. To do this we need to be candid about the pressures created by the transition to low carbon and show we will try to alleviate them where we can.

When I launched the plan, last week, I said energy prices were likely to rise by 2020. We need to convince people that despite the costs, the transition is right because the costs of not acting are much greater, and high-carbon fossil fuels offer an insecure future. We need to find ways of making the transition as fair as we can, insulating particularly the poorest people from these effects.

I believe the biggest threat to the countryside is not wind turbines but climate change. We do need to site new turbines in the most appropriate places, but we also need to persuade people that they have to go somewhere, and that the catastrophe wrought by climate change would indeed destroy many parts of our green and pleasant land.

However, building the resolve of a country, let alone a planet, is a big ask. Change happens not just because leaders want it, but because people demand it.Groups are springing up to persuade people to act on climate change. They ally the power of imagination – the rocket on the moon – with the power of example, action in their own lives.

They must also be the kernel of the movement, sustained and broad, that we need to exert pressure on governments up to Copenhagen and beyond. While this week we celebrate Apollo, it is persuasion, campaigning and political argument, not just technological advance, that will generate the giant leaps humankind needs on climate change.

for the copy of this article click here

Client News-Press Notice for Broadview Energy in South Warwickshire

BROADVIEW ENERGY INVESTIGATING FARMLAND SITE IN SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE FOR SMALL WIND FARM

Date of Issue: Monday, July 20th 2009

Broadview Energy Limited has today announced that it is considering the development of a small wind farm on agricultural land close to Junction 12 of the M40 motorway, and in the vicinity of the villages of Knightcote and Bishop’s Itchington in Warwickshire.

The company, which is developing a number of other small wind farm projects in England and Scotland, has identified the site as a possible location for up to 6 wind turbines. The company now needs to carry out a series of technical and environmental studies on the site (known as Starbold) and the surrounding area to confirm its initial findings.

Broadview has submitted a “Scoping Document” to Stratford-on-Avon District Council (the local planning authority) which outlines the scope of the studies that are to be carried out as part of the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Council will consult on the Scoping Document with parish councils, the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency, other government agencies and organisations such as Natural England and the RSPB. Once the scope is agreed, Broadview will set about completing the EIA which is expected to take six to eight months.

Jeffrey Corrigan, Managing Director of Broadview Energy said: “We have carried out initial studies and we think that the Starbold site could be ideal for a small wind farm. It’s windy and it’s set away from residential areas. It’s now necessary to carry out very detailed work to confirm our initial views. The results of the EIA, along with our consultations with local people and others, will establish the viability, size and precise location of the wind farm and whether or not we decide to take forward a scheme for planning approval by Stratford-on-Avon District Council.”

Public consultation is an important part of Broadview’s development work and the company will be holding “drop-in” sessions for local people after the summer holidays to give them an opportunity to learn more about the wind farm project and to meet members of the Broadview Energy team.

Jeffrey Corrigan added: “We are at a very early stage in the process but we are keen to let people know about our plans, our reasons for choosing the Starbold site and the contribution that onshore wind power can make to the region and to the country as a whole. In turn, we want to hear people’s initial thoughts on our plans and how they see renewable energy in helping to protect the environment and to secure the country’s energy future”.

As well as the “drop-in sessions”, Broadview Energy has launched a project website (www.starboldwindfarm.co.uk) and will also publish regular bulletins about its work. Assuming the environmental and technical studies confirm the Starbold site to be suitable for a wind farm, Broadview Energy will hold a series of exhibitions where people would see the final design and layout of the proposed scheme.

Notes to Editors:

1.Broadview Energy Limited (www.broadviewenergy.com) develops wind energy projects in the United Kingdom that generate clean, sustainable energy. Broadview takes projects from site identification, through the planning process, to construction and ultimately operation. The company focuses on small projects, typically between two and ten turbines. It currently has a number of projects under various stages of development throughout the United Kingdom.

2.The Government published its Renewable Energy Strategy on July 15th 2009 and has now set a revised target of 30% of all the electricity produced in the UK to be from renewable sources by 2020; currently the figures sit at approximately 5%.

3.The West Midlands Regional Energy Strategy (published in November 2004) includes targets for increasing the use of renewable energy. In August 2008,the West Midlands had approximately 188MW of renewable energy (primarily wind power) either projects in the planning process awaiting planning determination, those which have received planning consent but are yet to be constructed, those being constructed or those which are operational.

For more information:

Broadview Energy Limited

Lisa Ross, Community Relations Manager: lross@broadviewenergy.com / 020 8487 9150

Or Paul Taylor: paul@taylorkeogh.com / 020 3170 8465

Industry News-Review of UK policy annoucements on the future of energy and transport

Through out the week there was a blizzard of announcements focusing on the future of UK energy and decarbonising transport.

On Wednesday 15th of July the UK government published a white paper called the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan which has three elements; Renewable Energy Strategy, Low Carbon Industry Strategy and the Low Carbon Transport Plan. The paper sets out the government’s plans to meet its target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 34 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020.

In general the announcement focused on the renewable sector which is expected to increase its production of electricity from 6 per cent to 31 per cent over the next eleven years to 2020. The government wants to encourage all forms of low-carbon energy, Marine, Biomass, Onshore & offshore wind, nuclear power and clean coal (CCS) power stations that capture and store their emissions.

At the heart of the government's plans are giant offshore wind parks. The renewable energy industry will be given £120m to develop offshore wind technologies. The Government is allocating up to an additional £60 million for a suite of measures which will help accelerate the development and deployment of wave and tidal energy

The government reiterated their support for clean coal power generation and the progress being made in the area but were not forthcoming with any more statements. The June 2009 CCS consultation document along with the four site trials that are being funded will determine the future of the industry in the UK. In a new move the government are to open an Office of Carbon Capture and Storage to support the delivery of CCS. Full details will be announced in the autumn of this year.

Nuclear energy received little mention in the announcement apart from the government saying that it still had a part to play in the energy mix. The government are looking at streamlining the planning and regulatory approvals processes for new nuclear power stations. A national policy statement and a consultation document is due to be launched later in 2009.

The Government will provide capital investment to establish a Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre that combines the knowledge, practices and expertise of manufacturing companies with the capability of universities. This will complement the existing Advanced Manufacturing Centres in Sheffield and Glasgow and the Nuclear Laboratory in Sellafield.

Low Carbon Transport Plan

The Low Carbon Transport Plan focussed on decarbonising transport by moving to an integrated transport system with cycling, cars, rail, public transport and aviation all playing their part.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary pledged to reducing CO2 emissions from transport by 14 per cent by 2020. Under the new proposals the government will offer consumers grants of up to £5,000 if they purchase low polluting cars such as electric and plug in hybrids. Under the new proposals only cars that emit 75g per km of C02 or below will be eligible for these grants. The best-performing hybrid in the market in of 2009 is the Toyota Prius emitting 89g/km per KM of CO2.

The transport white paper has been welcomed environmentalists and business groups and is expected to become law by the end of the year. An overall a package of £250m of consumer incentives is being invested by the government to stimulate the take up of electric and plug-in-hybrid vehicles (This £250m figure is not new this announcement was made by Lord Mandelson the spring 2009).

One area where the move to more electric vehicles and hybrids has been falling down is in the area of charging points. There are very few in London and even less per square mile across the UK. This is significant. The move to electric vehicles will be slow if the consumer has the hassle of having no charging points outside their home. There is a serious need for charging points to be rolled out across the UK transport infrastructure quickly.

Recognising this as an issue the government have launched a new Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Grant Programme. The government will also unite Whitehall interests through the new Office for Low Emission Vehicles.

But this will not be the end of the debate. The government are working closely with industry and key stakeholders to develop a roadmap to 2050 by spring 2010. In autumn, the Committee on Climate Change will provide further analysis of the pathway through 2030 to 2050. The Government will work with the Committee, taking its analysis and recommendations into account when developing the roadmap to 2050. So there are several more negotiations and steps to go in the UK energy debate.

Jonny Mulligan