<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/xsl/eng/rss.xsl'?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" version="2.0"><channel><title>James' blog - BusinessGreen</title><link>http://www.businessgreen.com/</link><description>James blog</description><language>en</language><pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:32:12 GMT</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:32:12 GMT</lastBuildDate><ttl>30</ttl><item><title>Is Barker's solar spin splitting the industry?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c87d0fa/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C2145270A0Cbarkers0Esolar0Espin0Esplitting0Eindustry0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FIs0KBarker0J27s0Ksolar0Kspin0Ksplitting0Kthe0Kindustry0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Solar array promens rooftop site beccles 3" src="/IMG/723/186723/solar-array-promens-rooftop-site-beccles-3-185x114.JPG?1311254608" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Everyone welcomes Greg Barker’s pledge to grow the solar industry, but with the small print promising to shrink the sector this year firms are divided on how to respond &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; And so, the saga continues. Any hopes the government may have that the latest wave of proposed reforms to the feed-in tariff incentive scheme would bring to an end the controversy surrounding the UK's solar sector are proving entirely unfounded. The whole sorry tale of how the solar sector has been knee-capped by crippling policy uncertainty and unresolved tensions between admirable long term green ambitions and short term political battles has simply entered a new chapter - again providing a living and breathing parable for wider concerns about the seriousness of the government's green agenda. Climate Minister Greg Barker last night predicted there would be a "sharp intake of breath" across the solar industry when the proposals were published, and indeed there was. It took a few minutes, because while the press release and ministerial statement spoke of "improvements" to feed-in tariffs that would put "transparency, longevity, and certainty" at the heart of the reformed scheme, the real news was found in the official consultation document. It was once people reached page 10 and the news that tariffs for standard solar installations could be cut to as little as 13.6p/kWh from July, that breaths were snatched. Yes, the proposed cuts would only come into effect if there is a surge in installations over the next two months, and yes, the cuts may end up being more modest, but if 13.6p/kWh is adopted that would constitute another 35 per cent cut on top of the halving of tariffs that will come into effect from next month. As people read on it also became apparent that further cuts could come into effect from October, taking the level of support down to 12.9p/kWh. And then there was the new "regression mechanism", supposedly modelled on that used in Germany, which could result in cuts being imposed at two month's notice. Oh, and the payment period could be reduced from 20 to 25 years, and the index linking of payments could be ditched. At that point, the collective intakes of breath were in danger of asphyxiating some of the solar industry's finest. But before we get into the justification for and implications of such deep cuts, let's look at the good news. There is no doubt that it could have been a lot, lot worse. The government's decision to relax proposed energy efficiency requirements for installing solar panels so that an estimated 50 per cent of buildings can access the scheme is a vast improvement on plans that would have restricted the market to 14 per cent of properties. Moreover, while solar industry insiders such as Solarcentury's Jeremy Leggett are right to suggest the prospect of changes to incentives every two to six months will dampen demand and make planning extremely difficult, the new regression mechanisms should represent an improvement on the chaotic round of consultations and delays that have led to the current crisis. Assuming DECC gets its sums right (and I admit that is a pretty big assumption) businesses and households should be able to make a decision to install solar panels on the understanding that a well placed array will deliver a return on investment of at least five per cent - not a stellar return, but enough to attract domestic and commercial customers keen to cut emissions and limit exposure to rising energy prices. Best of all, Climate Minister Greg Barker today set the most ambitious target yet for the UK's solar industry, pledging to deliver 22GW of capacity by 2020, a 22-fold increase on current levels. Significantly, he also predicted that the market will continue to grow over the next three years, attempting to assuage fears that the government would back load all the promised growth until the second half of the decade. This pledge was supported by a commitment from DECC that additional budget had been identified that will cover recent over-spend and allow for £460m to be spent on new installations during the current spending period - enough, according to one expert I spoke to - to deliver moderate growth for the industry through to 2015. The government is now on the record with a commitment to the rapid expansion of the solar sector over the next eight years, handing green campaigners a stick with which to beat it if the industry does falter and it looks like the target will not be met. There have even been whispers that the government could from the summer include solar in an updated version of its renewable energy roadmap, having shamefully opted to exclude the technology from its list of renewable energy priorities in the original version. The problem - the all-consuming, over-arching problem - is that the scale of the cuts that are being proposed mean many people in the solar industry are deeply sceptical the sector can continue to grow in the short to medium-term. Emotions are running high, but you cannot simply shrug off descriptions of the proposed cuts as "disastrous", "catastrophic", and "Armageddon" for the industry as idle scare-mongering. A lot of otherwise sober voices are convinced the sector will see a contraction over the next couple of years, making it all but impossible to scale up again to reach the 22GW target by 2020. Why is there such a massive discrepancy between the prediction of DECC and some solar firms that the new rates and regression mechanism will deliver sustainable growth, and rival industry warnings that the proposed changes spell disaster for a previously expanding sector? The answer apparently lies in a report from consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff that analyses the recent reduction in the cost of different solar technologies, providing data that officials were then able to use to calculate the five per cent rates of return they want to see from the new lower tariffs. However, the report was apparently commissioned and delivered within three days and was based on information from just 13 firms. One extremely disgruntled solar industry source described it as a "shambles" and one of the worst government reports he had ever seen. Others are warning that the rapid recent reduction in solar panel costs that has been experienced over the last 12 months and informs the scale of the proposed cuts will not be maintained. All experts are agreed that costs will continue to fall in the long-term, but plummeting prices over the past year were caused by a global supply glut that is rapidly disappearing. Key material costs are now rising and some solar firms fear they will struggle to deliver the reductions in costs that will enable them to offer a five per cent rate of return at the proposed new tariff rates. However, there is considerable disagreement and confusion on this crucial point. Estimates from JDS Associates reckon that if the government opts for its mid-range scenario of 15.6p/kWh then modest improvements taking the cost of a 2.6Kw array down to around £7,000 would allow firms to offer the promised five per cent rate of return. But, others reckon another gold rush will occur over the next couple of months as people try to take advantage of the 21p/kWh rate, prompting the government to opt for a 13.6p/kWh tariff that slash rates of return and make solar installations unattractive to all but the most committed environmentalist. The solar industry is once again split. Optimists believe cost reductions can be delivered that would make the new tariff rates attractive and as such the sector will continue to grow over the next two years at a steady and sustainable rate. Pessimists (judging by my in-box, they are the more numerous group) fully believe in solar's long term viability, but insist the scale of the cuts will make it all but impossible for them to offer an attractive rate of return to customers anytime soon. Intriguingly, the government's own impact assessment appears to partially side with the pessimists (realists?), revealing that while calendar year 2011 saw 205,000 installations and 15,000 full time employees working in the sector, 2012/13 will see 120,000 installations and 10,000 employees. The sector will contract by a third over the next 12 months, before apparently bouncing back to 15,000 employees and 190,000 installations in 2013/14.  Some solar supporters have an explanation for the gap between the government's rhetoric and its apparent willingness to pursue policies that could cripple the sector. They complain that the proposals have the fingerprints of the Big Six energy companies all over them and the solar sector is falling victim to a concerted campaign to strangle potentially game-changing microgeneration technologies at birth. Paranoid conspiracy theory? Perhaps, but there is some evidence to fuel it. The solar industry remains furious that a promise last year to allow it to provide one secondee to DECC has still not been honoured, while Big Six employees can often be found working within the department. Moreover, under the proposals feed-in tariff rates for larger solar farms and rooftop installations could be cut to as little as 4.7p/kWh, well below the rate of 9p/kWh that is equivalent to the support handed to offshore wind. Previous promises to put solar farms on an even footing with other large scale renewables look set to be revoked, once again tilting the market in favour of the kind of gargantuan projects favoured by large utilities. In addition, while solar and small scale wind face the prospect of deep cuts to feed-in tariff incentives the only microgeneration system that could see support increase as a result of the consultation is micro-CHP. Coincidentally or not, this is the one microgeneration technology that several of the Big Six have a significant stake in. There are also credible whispers suggesting Barker has had to fight tooth and nail against ex DTI and Energy Department officials who remain ideologically hostile to anything other than large centralised energy projects. The minister has faced huge criticism from the solar industry over the past six months, but according to several well placed sources he has actually done a huge amount to protect the sector from those who would happily kill it off completely, delivering reforms that may allow the sector to survive in the long term, if not prosper in the short term. Where does all this Whitehall intrigue leave the solar industry? The answer is once again fighting for its life as it faces several more months of confusion and uncertainty. Installers are likely to enjoy a short term boost as people move to take advantage of the higher rates before they fall in July. But in the medium term it remains completely unclear whether the light contained in the consultation is the end of the tunnel or the proverbial on-coming train. The best case scenario is that solar costs continue to fall, DECC's maths proves accurate, and companies can with confidence offer attractive rates of return of five to eight per cent. It is also to be hoped that the stated goal of 22GW of capacity means ministers will have to raise tariffs if costs do not come down as expected and the market stalls badly. However, even if the medium to long term prospects end up looking good, the government's own impact assessment suggests the market will contract next year and not return to last year's levels until 2015 at the earliest. A lot rests on whether responses to the consultation can convince DECC to go with the more modest proposed cuts - as such it is encouraging that ministers have not yet set out a preference for any of the proposed new tariffs. For what it's worth, I have a more optimistic outlook for the solar sector than many of those solar firms still in shock at the latest round of cuts. Regardless of all the disruption it has faced, the solar market enjoys one fundamental advantage over many technologies - people love solar. The technology is getting better all the time and it is rapidly moving into the mainstream as more and more households and businesses deploy it. A five per cent rate of return might not win over many financial directors, but growing numbers of businesses are still being attracted to a technology that promises to cut energy bills and carbon emissions, while enhancing brand equity. The solar sector will survive and still has the potential to play a major role in the UK's low carbon energy mix, particularly if predictions that solar energy will soon compete with grid power on cost prove accurate. I have an inkling the best solar firms will find a way to continue their recent success. The technology remains highly attractive and if your company hasn't considered deploying solar it should at least investigate the option. But sadly, regardless of how positive a spin you try to put on it, the solar industry is again focused on survival rather than building on the rapid growth that has created thousands of jobs and helped cut building related emissions that are again rising - and all for the want of a relatively small sum of money. That is why, despite the government's encouraging words and the partial victory over those committed to killing solar off altogether, this sorry saga could still end up as a tragedy. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c87d0fa/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Is+Barker%27s+solar+spin+splitting+the+industry%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2145270%2Fbarkers-solar-spin-splitting-industry%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DIs%2BBarker%2527s%2Bsolar%2Bspin%2Bsplitting%2Bthe%2Bindustry%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Is+Barker%27s+solar+spin+splitting+the+industry%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2145270%2Fbarkers-solar-spin-splitting-industry%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DIs%2BBarker%2527s%2Bsolar%2Bspin%2Bsplitting%2Bthe%2Bindustry%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/126179056408/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c87d0fa/kg/301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/126179056408/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c87d0fa/kg/301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/126179056408/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c87d0fa/kg/301/a2t.img" border="0"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:45:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2145270/barkers-solar-spin-splitting-industry?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Is+Barker%27s+solar+spin+splitting+the+industry%3F</guid></item><item><title>10 green business questions Ed Davey needs to answer</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c758eec/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C214440A80Cgreen0Ebusiness0Equestions0Eed0Edavey0Eanswer0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0F10A0Kgreen0Kbusiness0Kquestions0KEd0KDavey0Kneeds0Kto0Kanswer/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Liberal Democrat energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey" src="/IMG/476/209476/eddavey-185x114.jpg?1328286250" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The Energy and Climate Change Secretary has a full in-tray that needs tackling immediately &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; It is one of the toughest and most exciting jobs in government, combining long term existential issues about human nature and the kind of society we want to live in with complex short term policy considerations capable of confusing the most adept of policy wonks. As such few departments offer a more daunting in-tray than that faced by newly appointed Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey. His predecessor, Chris Huhne, is widely held to have done a pretty good job, and yet the challenge presented by climate change and the transformation of the UK's energy infrastructure is so gargantuan that Davey still has a host of urgent questions that will need answering if the low carbon economy is to continue its recent success. There are bound to be plenty more (please add your own questions in the comment box) but here are just 10 questions green business leaders will want answering over the next month: What is going to happen to feed-in tariffs? It is the issue that will be at the top of Davey's in-box and the issue that tarnished Huhne's otherwise broadly successful track record: what is to be done about feed-in tariffs? Davey has to decide whether to proceed with the government's cynical Supreme Court appeal against the two legal defeats inflicted against its attempt to rush through cuts to solar feed-in tariff incentives before the consultation on the proposed changes was completed. It is highly unlikely he will drop the case, although doing so would immediately send out a signal that he is his own man and would win huge amounts of good will from the solar industry, green campaigners, and Lib Dem voters. Regardless of whether the appeal proceeds or not, Davey needs to bring forward promised reforms to a scheme that has become a victim of its own success and is in serious danger of breaching its long term budget even with the latest rounds of proposed cuts. Can the new Secretary of State secure a higher budget for a scheme that promises to normalise onsite renewable energy in the UK, and, if not, how does he plan to divide the remaining budget between different technology types? As importantly, can he repair the damage done by the mishandling of the proposed cuts and convince green investors that future government policies will remain stable and predictable? Can you make the Green Deal work? There is near universal agreement that the Green Deal is a great policy on paper - an elegant means of overcoming the upfront cost barriers that block otherwise sensible energy efficiency improvements, while driving a new job-rich home and office improvement programme. The only problem is that legitimate concerns about its effectiveness in practice are coming thick and fast. The interest rates attached to the scheme are not low enough, the financial returns will not be attractive enough, and without a degree of compulsion too many homeowners and landlords will ignore the scheme. Even DECC's own officials acknowledge that the rate of installation for some forms of insulation will fall. Huhne's response to these concerns boiled down to the promise of £200m worth of incentives to drive adoption and a "don't worry, it'll get sorted" attitude. But the scheme is due to be launched in October and the businesses that are being asked to determine its success or failure still have no details on what the government is going to do to drive the market. They need answers, and fast. And while we're talking about energy efficiency, the government's focus on domestic energy efficiency means the corporate sector is too often ignored. Will the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary correct this oversight and put in place a more coherent approach for helping businesses cope with rising energy prices. When can we expect a decision on mandatory carbon reporting? The decision was expected last autumn, and then before the end of the year, and then early in the New Year, and still we wait. The question is what for? The CBI and plenty of big name blue chips are in favour or mandatory carbon reporting rules that benefit investors and help firms identify areas to make savings, while the initial impact assessment suggesting the rules would impose a significant bill on businesses has been shown to be badly flawed. The rumour is that political battles are stalling the final decision, which is code for an almighty scrap between deregulatory Tories who are instinctively opposed to the rules, and Lib Dems and more progressive Conservatives who see carbon reporting as a prime example of smart regulation. The final decision lies with Caroline Spelman at Defra, but it would be a significant win for the green wing of the coalition if the reporting rules are approved. Will the Electricity Market Reforms see further reform? Their complexity means they do not get much media coverage, but businesses understand that the government's proposed electricity market reforms (EMR) represent the biggest shake up to one of the most important sectors of the economy since privatisation. There is broad support for the basic principles of clean energy subsidies, a carbon floor price, an emissions performance standard, and a system of payments for back-up power plants and efficiency schemes. But as time has passed opposition has grown to some elements of the package. Most notably, the Energy and Climate Change committee of MPs recently added their voice to warnings that the carbon floor price will lead to carbon leakage without action to the increase the carbon price at an EU level, while right wing opposition to renewable energy subsidies might be based on myths and half-truths but it is still gathering momentum. Will DECC stick with the proposed reforms as they stand or will we see further changes with all the implications such a move would have to energy investor confidence? Where are the green taxes you promised? It is right there in the Coalition Agreement, a commitment to "increase the proportion of tax revenue accounted for by environmental taxes". And yet, as this week's report from the Environmental Audit Committee has confirmed, progress on green taxes has been woeful and the Treasury appears to be trying to duck the issue by delaying the release of a clear definition on what constitutes a green tax. Fears are mounting that mandarins are simply looking for a way to redefine environmental levies in a way that allows ministers to argue that they have increased. Yes, green taxes can increase the tax burden on some firms, but they remain the most effective means of pricing externalities and can provide a huge boost to those companies providing greener goods and services. Davey campaigned personally for a shift towards green taxes, and yet in government the Lib Dems have hardly won a green tax concession from the Treasury worthy of the name. It is time for Davey to right that wrong. How do you plan to move forward with the UK's CCS and nuclear programme? While the renewable energy sector commands the headlines, the other two pillars of the government's strategy are too often ignored. Ambitions to become a world leader in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology have stalled as the government has been forced to return to square one with its plan to provide up to £1bn of funding to a full scale demonstration plant. Meanwhile, the promised nuclear renaissance is moving forward at a snail's pace, hampered by safety concerns post-Fukushima and continued opposition from many green campaigners. The UK should have the engineering expertise and stable policy environment necessary to lead the world in CCS and promising next generation nuclear technologies, but both sectors urgently need greater clarity on how the government wants them to develop. What role can the UK play in international climate negotiations? The UK is rightly proud of its track record at international climate change negotiations, repeatedly playing a progressive role in driving forward green policies and building links between industrialised and developing countries. However, with the deal brokered in Durban setting a deadline of 2015 for a new international agreement there is a real risk that talks could now tread water for several years. What can the UK do to help ensure this does not happen, and at a regional level how can Britain play a role in convincing other EU member states to increase the bloc's carbon targets for 2020 and 2025? On a more mercenary level how can the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary help the UK's green businesses punch above their weight in an increasingly competitive global market? How will DECC work with other government departments? Huhne was a very capable Secretary of State, but not even his biggest fan would describe him as a conciliatory politician. DECC has too often operated in a green ghetto, struggling to ensure that the progress it has made on green energy has been replicated in areas such as green transport, green buildings, green skills, and climate adaptation. Can Davey improve relations with the Conservative-controlled Defra, Department for Transport, Department for Communities and Local Government, and most importantly the Treasury? Equally, can he work closely with his leader Nick Clegg and even the Prime Minister David Cameron to push the green economy higher up the agenda? Can the government face down its green critics? No sooner had Huhne cleared his desk than a group of around 100 Conservative MPs let it be known that they had written to the Prime Minister calling on him to drastically cut subsidies for onshore wind farms. If he is not aware already, green NGOs will be lining up to inform Davey that the green economy has spent the past six months fending off a wave of orchestrated attacks from backbench MPs and right wing commentators. Some of these critics have asked legitimate and pertinent questions that the government must answer about the effectiveness of certain policies, but the vast majority have used dubious myths and half-truths to malign successful green policies, when their opposition really boils down to nimbyism, climate scepticism, and vested interest in the fossil fuel economy. For various reasons the government has to date proved curiously ineffective at facing down these critics. Davey needs to quickly establish himself as fierce advocate of the green economy who is unafraid to repel the unjustified attacks the sector faces. He has made a good start with a commitment to "green growth", but green businesses cannot hear enough of this type of rhetoric if they are to deliver the long term investor confidence that is required. Where does Davey stand on the big issues? Policies are hugely important, but the challenges and opportunities that define the green economy demand that political and business leaders take a position on some pretty existential economic and social issues. They don't need to answer them exactly, no one can, but they need to demonstrate that they are willing to engage with them. Is economic growth and genuine sustainability compatible or do we need a new circular economic settlement? How do you put a value on bio-diversity, and if you can should you do so? How do you make carbon emission reductions equitable? Do you really believe current emission reduction targets are sufficient? How do you make people aware of the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions without succumbing to doom-mongering nihilism? At what point should governments step up their focus on climate adaptation? How should investors deal with the potential "carbon bubble"? How do we re-skill for a low carbon economy? Should countries try to address booming population growth? Are current trade and copyright rules compatible with the accelerated roll out of clean technologies? Should geo-engineering be part of global efforts to address climate change? Should we ban certain carbon intensive activities? No one is expecting Davey to have answers to these questions, but if he is to work effectively to promote the green economy then green business leaders will need to know where he stands on many of these big issues. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c758eec/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=10+green+business+questions+Ed+Davey+needs+to+answer&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2144408%2Fgreen-business-questions-ed-davey-answer%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3D10%2Bgreen%2Bbusiness%2Bquestions%2BEd%2BDavey%2Bneeds%2Bto%2Banswer" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=10+green+business+questions+Ed+Davey+needs+to+answer&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2144408%2Fgreen-business-questions-ed-davey-answer%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3D10%2Bgreen%2Bbusiness%2Bquestions%2BEd%2BDavey%2Bneeds%2Bto%2Banswer" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/126178854378/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c758eec/kg/294-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/126178854378/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c758eec/kg/294-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:22:45 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2144408/green-business-questions-ed-davey-answer?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=10+green+business+questions+Ed+Davey+needs+to+answer</guid></item><item><title>So long Chris Huhne, and thanks for all the fights</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c6f4e30/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21441820Cchris0Ehuhne0Ethanks0Efights0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FSo0Klong0KChris0KHuhne0J2C0Kand0Kthanks0Kfor0Kall0Kthe0Kfights/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Secretary of state for energy and climate change Chris Huhne" src="/IMG/493/119493/huhne-185x114.jpg?1303309031" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Why green businesses will miss the controversial former energy and climate change secretary &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; You can say what you like about Chris Huhne, and a lot of people have over the past four days, but he has certainly overseen an eventful 20 months for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the UK's burgeoning green economy. As this weekend's countless (and possibly premature) political obituaries have made plain, Huhne was not to everyone's taste – there are plenty of people delighting in the resignation of a man who often created the impression that he said what he liked, and liked what he said. But despite a number of high-profile mis-steps he was, for the most part, a good friend of green businesses, and a powerful and vocal advocate for the low-carbon economy. Huhne's personal and political faults have been well documented in recent days. He is an abrasive politician, driven not so much by overly aggressive instincts, but more by an unshakable self confidence in his own judgement that his opponents routinely deride as arrogance. The stories of bruising exchanges with colleagues and opponents are legion. There was the infamous cabinet table row with Cameron and Osborne over dirty tactics in the AV referendum, the attack on the Conservative's 'Goebbels-like' campaign against the alternative vote, and ill-tempered scraps with Nick Clegg and Menzies Campbell for the Lib Dem leadership. There were whispers of officials who were disgruntled over Huhne's tendency to spend time engaged in political plotting, not to mention a fair few egos bruised by a willingness to challenge civil servants' advice. Then there were the attacks on both the "climate sceptics and armchair engineers" opposed to the government's green agenda, and the coalition of solar firms that challenged his department's ill-starred handling of cuts to incentives. It is easy to understand why so few tears have been shed over such a high-profile setback to a promising political career. And yet green businesses and green NGOs have plenty of reasons to regret the resignation of the energy and climate change secretary (to give him his full title). I understand the problems caused by newspaper space restrictions, but the media make a significant error when they describe the post as energy secretary. Being energy secretary would be a pretty easy job, being energy and climate change secretary is a historic challenge. Huhne undoubtedly blotted his copy book with the chronic mishandling of cuts to solar feed-in tariffs, and angered old-school environmentalists with his support for nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. But his willingness to promote the green agenda, meet and engage with green business leaders, and stand up to high-profile critics of environmental policies, including his nemesis at Number 11, means Huhne leaves the UK's burgeoning low-carbon economy in better shape than it would otherwise have been. Significantly, he won an early battle with the Treasury, deploying the prime minister's "greenest government ever" commitment to ensure DECC faced the smallest budget cut of any department bar International Development. He then managed the cuts that were imposed in a manner that minimised disruption and allowed quangos such as the Carbon Trust to build an independent future. Anyone doubting the importance of this achievement should witness the travails experienced by Defra over the past year, the bulk of which spring directly from the ridiculously deep budget cuts agreed by the department. Huhne then stood up to Osborne and (shamefully) Vince Cable in successfully making the case for the UK to sign up to the fourth carbon budget, pledging to halve emissions against 1990 levels by 2025, and built on that success by leading the fight back against those vested interests and Conservative MPs calling for the UK to downgrade its green ambitions. While the prime minister remained silent, Nick Clegg proved strangely reluctant to play to his green base, and the chancellor launched a series of thinly veiled attacks on the green economy, Huhne was the government's most high-profile defender of green businesses and their potential to reshape the UK's economy for the better. His series of three set-piece speeches over the summer on the need to get "off the oil hook" and build new industries of the future contained nothing that green business leaders and economists haven't been saying for years, but they offered an eloquent assessment of the huge benefits that will accrue from a cleaner approach to economic growth. They should be required reading for not just Huhne's replacement, Ed Davey, but for every member of a government that does not always create the impression it is fully signed up to green growth. The remarkable manner in which Huhne managed to deliver these noteworthy achievements against a backdrop of a police investigation and tabloid sniping also gave DECC admirable stability. Since its formation in 2008, DECC has seen only Huhne and Ed Miliband serve as secretaries of state, providing the still young department with cabinet ministers who enjoyed the high-profile and political clout the job requires. Huhne's political victories were accompanied by a series of policy successes that promise to reshape the UK's infrastructure over the coming decade. In fact, when Huhne looks back one of his biggest regrets will almost certainly be the fact that he got only about a third of the way through a programme that promises to lay the foundations for a complete restricting of the UK's infrastructure. The blueprints are all in place, but it will now be left to Huhne's successor to turn Electricity Market Reform, the Green Deal, the Green Investment Bank, the Renewable Heat Incentive and the feed-in tariff scheme into reality. The onus is on Ed Davey and Nick Clegg (who surely now has to take on the more politically partisan role played by Huhne) to not only ensure these policies prove successful, but also repeatedly make the economic case for green growth. Any sign of weakness will be seized upon by the increasingly vocal critics of the environmental agenda, many of whom disguise their climate scepticism and anti-green politics behind spurious arguments about the cost of clean technology. If the Lib Dems need evidence of this threat they need look no further than last week's letter to David Cameron from about 100 Tory MPs attacking wind farm policy. It remains to be seen if Davey has the influence, nous and appetite to drive the green agenda forward, although he made a good start this morning with the assertion that "there may have been a change at the helm, but there'll be no change in direction or ambition". Green business leaders will be hoping he is true to his word and quickly builds on the successes Huhne enjoyed during an eventful 20 months at DECC. In an ideal world Davey will be able to deliver this progress without finding himself embroiled in quite as many of the political fights that Huhne apparently reveled in. But if a scrap is what is required, let's all hope he knows how to fight for green business interests. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c6f4e30/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=So+long+Chris+Huhne%2C+and+thanks+for+all+the+fights&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2144182%2Fchris-huhne-thanks-fights%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DSo%2Blong%2BChris%2BHuhne%252C%2Band%2Bthanks%2Bfor%2Ball%2Bthe%2Bfights" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=So+long+Chris+Huhne%2C+and+thanks+for+all+the+fights&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2144182%2Fchris-huhne-thanks-fights%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DSo%2Blong%2BChris%2BHuhne%252C%2Band%2Bthanks%2Bfor%2Ball%2Bthe%2Bfights" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123997407340/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c6f4e30/kg/300-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123997407340/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c6f4e30/kg/300-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:26:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2144182/chris-huhne-thanks-fights?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=So+long+Chris+Huhne%2C+and+thanks+for+all+the+fights</guid></item><item><title>Would you miss Tesco’s carbon labels?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c433a0d/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21423650Cmiss0Etesco0Es0Ecarbon0Elabels0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FWould0Kyou0Kmiss0KTesco0JE20J80A0J99s0Kcarbon0Klabels0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Tesco store" src="/IMG/732/85732/tesco-store-185x114.jpg?1251281879" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Tesco's move to phase out carbon labelling might be understandable, but it is also disappointingly short-sighted &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Do you pay attention to carbon footprint labels? When you see one does it resonate? Do you use it to decide whether or not to buy a product? Do you even know what one looks like? Apparently, not enough of us are answering these questions in the affirmative. According to reports in the Grocer magazine, Tesco climate change director Helen Fielding has confirmed the supermarket giant is reviewing its commitment to roll out Carbon Trust-backed carbon footprint labels across its full product range, after concluding the labels were too costly to implement and had failed to have the desired impact with customers. A spokeswoman for the company quickly clarified that no decision has yet been taken, insisting that while the company was looking at its options it remained fully committed to carbon footprinting. "We are committed to carbon footprinting and effectively communicating this information to our customers to help them make greener choices," she said in a statement. "We know our customers care about product sustainability, but there is a real challenge to effectively explain this often complex message in a meaningful way, so we are currently reviewing a range of options." Regardless of Tesco's final decision on the future of a footprinting initiative that has already seen carbon labels successfully attached to around 500 products, it will mark both an important turning point for a footprinting model that will ultimately prove critical to corporate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and potentially an embarrassing U-turn for the UK's largest supermarket. I recall being at an event back in 2008 on footprinting and corporate social responsibility where Tesco's corporate affairs director (and former Number 10 insider), David North, offered a remarkably impassioned defence of the company's commitment to footprint labels, even resorting at one point to quoting William Tyndale's damning indictment of elites who "keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people". The reason it sticks in the mind, beyond the fact that 15th century scholars are not quoted that often at sustainability summits, was that North's defence was so robust it actually all got a bit uncomfortable for the audience, as he clashed with a representative of a consumer lobby group who argued carbon labels were too complex and would confuse customers. Dismissing the complaint, North challenged his adversary to spell out precisely what it was on the labels that he regarded as confusing, implying that he was patronising consumers with the assumption they would not be able to comprehend carbon footprint labels. It is easy to see why Tesco was so keen on carbon labels. The approach fits neatly with the company's philosophy of empowering consumers to make their own decisions. Tesco does its bit by providing the required carbon information and then it is up to the customer to make the greener choice. It is a neat, voluntary, market-based, essentially laissez faire approach to a problem that many green campaigners maintain will require stringent regulations to resolve. But four years on, Tesco now appears ready to tacitly acknowledge both that there "is a real challenge to effectively explain this often complex message in a meaningful way", and that the effectiveness of carbon labels has been undermined by the absence of any requirement forcing other retailers to join in and adopt carbon labels. The big question now is how does Tesco and other companies engage in carbon footprinting exercises in the future? Most importantly it needs to be remembered that the challenge Tesco is facing appears to centre on the concept of carbon footprint labelling, not the practice of carbon footprinting itself. The Carbon Trust's other main carbon management initiative, the Carbon Trust Standard – which can be carried by any company that reports on its overall carbon emissions and demonstrates that they are falling year-on-year – continues to go from strength to strength. Meanwhile, there are countless examples of how companies have calculated the carbon footprints of products and used the resulting information to identify steps that they can take to cut carbon emissions and save money. There remains a compelling financial and environmental case for companies to measure their carbon emissions in as much detail as possible, providing them with the data they need to reduce their carbon intensity. Coincidentally, a major new report on green corporate spending due out tomorrow is expected to show that spending on "product stewardship" initiatives such as carbon footprinting and sustainable supply chain management will grow rapidly over the next few years. Interest in carbon footprinting services will inevitably expand as companies look to cut carbon, curb operating costs, and make supply chains more sustainable. The challenge for Tesco and others centres more on what you should do once you have that carbon data. Should it be used to inform the purchasing and investment decisions of senior executives, or should it be pushed into the hands of customers so that they can make their own decisions on green goods and services? In an ideal world, the answer has to be both. Carbon data should inform the strategic decisions a company makes, but in the interest of transparency and consumer rights it should also be made available to customers. Coincidentally, news of Tesco's willingness to drop carbon labels came on the same day as a major new report from the UN suggested that environmental labelling should play a key role in the transition to a more sustainable economy, allowing consumers to "make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour". It is easy to argue that Tesco is about to ditch a progressive environmental measure that simply requires a bit more patience and investment. And yet, Tesco is right to complain that without other retailers getting involved carbon labelling in the UK is always going to struggle to reach the "critical mass" required to become truly effective. People can only make a sustainable choice to select the lowest carbon products if large numbers of products are labelled and the greenest options are clear. The current labels are not pervasive enough and, when they are visible, not enough is done to make them prominent and understandable. So, what next? It is informative that as Tesco backs away from carbon footprint labelling, simpler environmental labels such as the Vestas-backed Windmade scheme for products made using wind energy or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for sustainable seafood are gathering momentum. It is also important to note that labelling schemes such as the MSC and Fairtrade labels required years of educational efforts and marketing investment before they truly broke through into the retailing mainstream. The carbon footprinting sector will continue to expand with or without Tesco's direct involvement. Businesses know they can't manage what they don't measure, and as such more and more firms will continue to invest in analysing and understanding their various carbon footprints. However, it is to be hoped Tesco is serious when it says it is reviewing its options, and will now find a new and more effective way to make carbon and other environmental data available to its customers. It would be a tragedy for a supermarket that is so effective at both shaping and responding to its customers' needs to ditch a successful and progressive environmental initiative simply because it is a few years ahead of its time. Ultimately, more of us than Tesco realises will miss its carbon labels when they are gone. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c433a0d/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Would+you+miss+Tesco%E2%80%99s+carbon+labels%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2142365%2Fmiss-tesco-s-carbon-labels%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DWould%2Byou%2Bmiss%2BTesco%25E2%2580%2599s%2Bcarbon%2Blabels%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Would+you+miss+Tesco%E2%80%99s+carbon+labels%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2142365%2Fmiss-tesco-s-carbon-labels%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DWould%2Byou%2Bmiss%2BTesco%25E2%2580%2599s%2Bcarbon%2Blabels%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996888762/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c433a0d/kg/294-300-303/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996888762/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c433a0d/kg/294-300-303/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:28:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2142365/miss-tesco-s-carbon-labels?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Would+you+miss+Tesco%E2%80%99s+carbon+labels%3F</guid></item><item><title>Cameron's Rio dilemma: Should he stay or should he go?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c2eef75/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21416480Ccamerons0Erio0Edilemma0Estay0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FCameron0J27s0KRio0Kdilemma0J3A0KShould0Khe0Kstay0Kor0Kshould0Khe0Kgo0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="rio-brazil" src="/IMG/895/175895/rio-brazil-185x114.jpg?1304603100" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The prime minister has no choice – his commitment to the green economy will be judged by his attendance at the Earth Summit &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; If you were to ask most people whether they would like an all-expenses-paid trip to Rio de Janeiro, expressly designed to demonstrate that they were a nice guy or gal who cared about the planet, it would probably not take them too long to start packing their sunglasses. Sadly, life is not that simple when you are prime minister. The debate over whether or not David Cameron should attend the Rio Earth +20 Summit continues to rumble on, presenting a potential political land mine for Number 10 that is only going to become more prominent as we get closer the global conference's kick-off on 20 June. Speaking at a press briefing earlier this week on the coalition's new climate impact report, environment secretary Caroline Spelman responded to a direct question on the prime minister's possible attendance of the most high-profile environmental meeting in two decades by insisting no decision had yet been made on whether her boss would book a flight to Brazil. Which begs the question – why is it taking so long to make a decision? What is the prime minister worried about? To re-cap, it emerged last year that Cameron would not be attending the Rio Earth Summit on the rather dubious grounds that the original date of 4-6 June clashed with the Queen's Jubilee celebrations (big picture, Dave – I'm sure she wouldn't miss you too much and they'll be plenty of photos). This prompted a small outcry from green campaigners and even led to a rethink from the summit's Brazilian hosts, who rescheduled the meeting for later in the month, primarily so Commonwealth heads of state would not have to make a tricky decision on whether they cared more about the Queen's knees-up or the future habitability of the planet. However, with diary clash resolved, Number 10 still refused to confirm whether Cameron would attend, and sources hinted it was unlikely he would make the trip. Even a highly critical report from the Environmental Audit Committee, which recommended the prime minister "lead by example" and confirm his attendance, failed to secure the RSVP green campaigners and the summit's hosts have been waiting for. All of which brings up to this week and Spelman's confirmation that a final decision is still yet to be made. Does Cameron's attendance matter? At a technical level, probably not. Sources in Defra tell me preparations for the summit are going well with a particular focus on brokering some tangible new agreements on areas such as forest protection and the marine environment. Relations between the UK and the summit's Brazilian hosts are said to be good and Spelman is reportedly working hard to ensure the summit builds on the success enjoyed at the Nagoya Summit on biodiversity last year. Cameron's presence or otherwise is unlikely to make much of an impact on the technical negotiations that will take place at the summit. But when it comes to political symbolism, snubbing the summit would matter, at both a domestic and international level. The Rio Earth Summit +20 will be the most important environmental summit, certainly since the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, and arguably since the first Rio Summit 20 years ago. President Obama is unlikely to be there as it is an election year and his Republican opponents regard anything to do with the health of the planet as a Commie plot, but plenty of other world leaders and business titans will be there, particularly those from the increasingly influential emerging economies and the global south. Judging by the likely guest list alone, it would be inappropriate for the UK prime minister not to attend, especially when the UK has serious ambitions to become a world leader in the development of more sustainable technologies and business models. Cameron should be there for the trade opportunities alone. On a domestic level, meanwhile, it is no secret tensions are running pretty high between the green movement and the coalition. The government maintains it is not getting the credit it deserves for the pioneering green policies it has put in place. Green critics counter that any positive steps are undermined by carbon-intensive policies as well as the thinly veiled hostility to environmental issues in the rhetoric of the chancellor and the failure of the prime minister to talk about his green ambitions in public. Both sides agree that, in the words of climate minister Greg Barker, the government needs to put its "mouth where its money is" and make more of a noise about its green agenda. However, failing to attend the Rio Earth Summit would give the green movement another high-profile stick with which to beat the coalition, further undermining the positive work that is being done to attract green investors to the UK. Could Cameron's attendance make a difference? Well, if the anti-environmental rhetoric in which George Osborne has been indulging in recent months has damaged green investor confidence (and the consensus is that it absolutely has), the opposite is also true. Some unashamedly pro-environmental rhetoric in a high-profile forum from the most powerful person in the country would send a clear signal that the UK is open to green business. It might be a bit shallow, but words and symbolism matter, often as much as the policies that back them up. Forty-eight hours in Rio may not give Cameron time to make it to the pool, but it could be long enough for him to promote the UK's green economy, ink a couple of important clean-tech trade deals and international commitments, and help ensure the media will pay attention to what will be a hugely important summit. Moreover, the absence of clearly defined goals for the summit means that, unlike in Copenhagen and other UN climate summits, there is little danger of the prime minister being associated with a conference that is deemed to have failed. Cameron should go to the summit and confirm his attendance as soon as possible in order to crank up pressure on other world leaders to follow suit. And if he really feels the combination of the Queen's Jubilee, the Olympics and Brits' tendency to riot on summer evenings means he can't leave the country, Nick Clegg should do his duty as a deputy prime minister and attend in the prime minister's place. Either way, someone needs to join Caroline Spelman in packing the sunglasses. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c2eef75/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Cameron%27s+Rio+dilemma%3A+Should+he+stay+or+should+he+go%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2141648%2Fcamerons-rio-dilemma-stay%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DCameron%2527s%2BRio%2Bdilemma%253A%2BShould%2Bhe%2Bstay%2Bor%2Bshould%2Bhe%2Bgo%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Cameron%27s+Rio+dilemma%3A+Should+he+stay+or+should+he+go%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2141648%2Fcamerons-rio-dilemma-stay%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DCameron%2527s%2BRio%2Bdilemma%253A%2BShould%2Bhe%2Bstay%2Bor%2Bshould%2Bhe%2Bgo%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996590826/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c2eef75/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996590826/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c2eef75/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:10:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2141648/camerons-rio-dilemma-stay?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Cameron%27s+Rio+dilemma%3A+Should+he+stay+or+should+he+go%3F</guid></item><item><title>Solar court ruling - the end of the beginning?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c204b13/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21412970Csolar0Ecourt0Eruling0Ebeginning0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FSolar0Kcourt0Kruling0K0E0Kthe0Kend0Kof0Kthe0Kbeginning0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Solar rooftops on residential buildings" src="/IMG/543/119543/solar-11-185x114.jpg?1288200271" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Today's appeal court victory is welcome, but too many questions about the UK's solar future still remain unanswered &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; It would be nice to report today on a stirring victory for the UK's solar industry that finally provides clarity to the level of incentives available to solar installations, and more importantly sets a clear precedent that the government cannot drive a coach and horses through its own consultation rules and change crucial policies retrospectively. But sadly, while such a report would be largely accurate, it would also only tell half the story. This sorry saga is not over yet. The solar sector and the wider green economy are right to celebrate today. They have won an important victory and have hopefully set a precedent on government consultation practices that should benefit the entire business community. They have also amply demonstrated the huge public support for solar power and provided the starkest demonstration yet that the UK's green economy can only prosper if ministers provide a stable policy environment. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will now be forced to think twice before trying to change policies without sufficient notice. Moreover, if sources are to be believed it will respond to the shellacking it has experienced over recent months by soon unveiling reforms to the feed-in tariff scheme that will make the incentive mechanism much more sustainable and predictable. And yet today's court victory, while welcome, fails to draw the line under the whole sorry saga that both ministers and the solar industry claim to crave. It took the government less than two hours to torpedo the apparent clarity delivered by the Appeal Court ruling, issuing a statement from Chris Huhne confirming the department would seek an appeal hearing at the Supreme Court. Given that four judges have now unequivocally ruled the government's attempt to retrospectively cut incentives was unlawful, it is hard to imagine DECC lawyers can come up with a more convincing appeal. But, as numerous solar industry commentators have pointed out, the intricacies of the legal argument are beside the point; the government's primary aim is simply to ensure the precise level of feed-in tariff support remains opaque until as close to the new March 3 cut-off date as possible. Depending on your point of view, ministers are currently demonstrating their mastery of the pragmatic art of Real Politic or displaying staggering levels of cynicism by launching an appeal that ensures solar firms still cannot with confidence tell customers they will receive the 43p/kWh feed-in tariff rate. In addition to this continued short term uncertainty, today's court victory does nothing to address the medium and long-term questions hanging over the sector. The industry is still awaiting news on whether the government will move forward with the other controversial element of its consultation on solar feed-in tariffs - the plan to restrict installations to the most efficient buildings, slashing the available market by 80 per cent in one swoop. If these standards are imposed (and there is a reasonable case for introducing some form of energy efficiency standard for buildings deploying microgeneration) solar firms will quickly have to work out a way to offer their own energy efficiency upgrades through the Green Deal, or partner with companies that already offer such services. Either way the market will be restricted as one of the main advantages of solar installations, the fact they are easy and quick to install, is eroded. As importantly, the spending cap imposed on the feed-in tariff scheme continues to loom over any discussion on the future of microgeneration. The scheme has proven remarkably popular and has delivered a sea change in corporate and public support for renewable energy and by extension greener lifestyles. But it is now in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Every aspect of the government's chronic mishandling of the initial attempt to cut incentives was driven by concerns that the scheme's entire budget could be blown. According to climate minister Greg Barker, the budget for this year has already been exceeded and the budget for next year could quickly be burned through as well if today's court ruling triggers another rush of deployments. As a result the department will now be under intense pressure to either cut incentives further (something ministers came very close to doing last autumn) or find a way to either increase the spending cap or pump more money into the scheme. There is a very real danger that today's court victory could prove Pyrrhic, with the government moving to cut incentives again post-April. The tragedy of all of this is that the solar industry really is on the cusp of a hugely significant breakthrough. According to modelling currently being undertaken by the industry the rate at which solar panel costs are falling suggests the technology could be competitive with the cheapest renewables within a few short years, and could even be competitive with energy from the grid a few years after that. The government could reach its goal of cutting the level of support for solar to 9p/kWh, equivalent to the level of support offered to wind energy, in a relatively short timeframe. But only if it does not kill the industry off by cutting the level of support too far and too fast. As we've argued before, it is time for the government to provide the sector with the clarity it deserves. That means confirming the long-term level of incentives for solar energy (and other forms of microgeneration) and ideally raising the spending cap to ensure support is set at a level that allows the industry to continue to grow. If that really cannot be done then ministers need to stop messing the sector around and offer an honest assessment of where solar stands in their list of priorities. If that means providing investors with a clear signal that they do not believe microgeneration - and all the jobs, economic growth, and emissions savings it delivers - can achieve mainstream adoption in the UK, then, sadly, that is what they must do. As the reaction to today's court ruling demonstrates there is huge public appetite for solar energy in the UK. Households want it, businesses want it, even the CBI wants it, and while there are legitimate concerns about the cost most people recognise that a couple of pounds a year on energy bills (because that is all we are talking about) is a price worth paying for a fast expanding green industry that promises to break the stranglehold of incumbent energy suppliers and could deliver low cost energy within five years. It is now up to the government to deliver the clarity the industry deserves - and it should start by dropping its latest appeal and releasing details on the next wave of proposed changes to the feed-in tariff scheme. Sadly, today's court ruling does not mark the end to this long-running saga. But the industry will remain hopeful that it could represent what one of the UK's rather more capable politicians once referred to as the "end of the beginning". &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c204b13/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Solar+court+ruling+-+the+end+of+the+beginning%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2141297%2Fsolar-court-ruling-beginning%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DSolar%2Bcourt%2Bruling%2B-%2Bthe%2Bend%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bbeginning%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Solar+court+ruling+-+the+end+of+the+beginning%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2141297%2Fsolar-court-ruling-beginning%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DSolar%2Bcourt%2Bruling%2B-%2Bthe%2Bend%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bbeginning%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996359570/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c204b13/kg/301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996359570/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c204b13/kg/301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:16:39 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2141297/solar-court-ruling-beginning?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Solar+court+ruling+-+the+end+of+the+beginning%3F</guid></item><item><title>Solar court ruling – the end of the beginning?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c207691/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21412970Csolar0Ecourt0Eruling0Ebeginning0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FSolar0Kcourt0Kruling0K0JE20J80A0J930Kthe0Kend0Kof0Kthe0Kbeginning0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Solar rooftops on residential buildings" src="/IMG/543/119543/solar-11-185x114.jpg?1328107777" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Today's appeal court victory is welcome, but too many questions about the UK's solar future remain unanswered &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; It would be nice to report today on a stirring victory for the UK's solar industry. A victory that finally provides clarity to the level of incentives available to solar installations and, more importantly, sets a clear precedent that the government cannot drive a coach and horses through its own consultation rules and change crucial policies retrospectively. But sadly, while such a report would be largely accurate, it would also only tell half the story. This sorry saga is not over yet. The solar sector and the wider green economy are right to celebrate today. They have won an important victory and have hopefully set a precedent on government consultation practices that should benefit the entire business community. They have also amply demonstrated the huge public support for solar power and provided the starkest demonstration yet that the UK's green economy can only prosper if ministers provide a stable policy environment. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will now be forced to think twice before trying to change policies without sufficient notice. Moreover, if sources are to be believed, it will respond to the shellacking it has experienced over recent months by soon unveiling reforms to the feed-in tariff scheme that will make the incentive mechanism much more sustainable and predictable. And yet today's court victory, while welcome, fails to draw the line that both ministers and the solar industry claim to crave. It took the government less than two hours to torpedo the apparent clarity delivered by the Appeal Court ruling, issuing a statement from Chris Huhne that confirms the department will seek an appeal hearing at the Supreme Court. Given that four judges have now unequivocally ruled the government's attempt to retrospectively cut incentives was unlawful, it is hard to imagine DECC lawyers can come up with a more convincing appeal. But, as numerous solar industry commentators have pointed out, the intricacies of the legal argument are beside the point; the government's primary aim is simply to ensure the precise level of feed-in tariff support remains opaque until as close to the new March 3 cut-off date as possible. Depending on your point of view, ministers are currently demonstrating their mastery of the pragmatic art of Realpolitik or displaying staggering levels of cynicism by launching an appeal that ensures solar firms still cannot with confidence tell customers they will receive the 43p/kWh feed-in tariff rate. In addition to this continued short-term uncertainty, today's court victory does nothing to address the medium- and long-term questions hanging over the sector. The industry is still awaiting news on whether the government will move forwards with the other controversial element of its consultation on solar feed-in tariffs: the plan to restrict installations to the most efficient buildings, slashing the available market by 80 per cent in one swoop. If these standards are imposed (and there is a reasonable case for introducing some form of energy efficiency standard for buildings deploying microgeneration), solar firms will quickly have to work out a way to offer their own energy efficiency upgrades through the Green Deal, or partner with companies that already offer such services. Either way, the market will be restricted as one of the main advantages of solar installations – the fact that they are easy and quick to install – is eroded. As importantly, the spending cap imposed on the feed-in tariff scheme continues to loom over any discussion on the future of microgeneration. The scheme has proven remarkably popular and has delivered a sea change in corporate and public support for renewable energy and, by extension, greener lifestyles. But it is now in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Every aspect of the government's chronic mishandling of the initial attempt to cut incentives was driven by concerns that the scheme's entire budget could be blown. According to climate minister Greg Barker, the budget for this year has already been exceeded and the budget for next year could quickly be burned through as well if today's court ruling triggers another rush of deployments. As a result, the department will now be under intense pressure to either cut incentives further (something ministers came very close to doing last autumn) or find a way to either increase the spending cap or pump more money into the scheme. There is a very real danger that today's court victory could prove Pyrrhic, with the government moving to cut incentives again post-April. The tragedy of all of this is that the solar industry really is on the cusp of a hugely significant breakthrough. According to modelling currently being undertaken by the industry, the rate at which solar panel costs are falling suggests the technology could be competitive with the cheapest renewables within a few short years, and could even be competitive with energy from the grid a few years after that. The government could reach its goal of cutting the level of support for solar to 9p/kWh, equivalent to the level of support offered to wind energy, in a relatively short timeframe. But only if it does not kill the industry off by cutting the level of support too far and too fast. As we've argued before, it is time for the government to provide the sector with the clarity it deserves. That means confirming the long-term level of incentives for solar energy (and other forms of microgeneration) and ideally raising the spending cap to ensure support is set at a level that allows the industry to continue to grow. If that really cannot be done, ministers need to stop messing the sector around and offer an honest assessment of where solar stands in their list of priorities. And if that means providing investors with a clear signal that they do not believe microgeneration – and all the jobs, economic growth and emissions savings it delivers – can achieve mainstream adoption in the UK, then, sadly, that is what they must do. As the reaction to today's court ruling demonstrates, there is huge public appetite for solar energy in the UK. Households want it, businesses want it, even the CBI wants it. While there are legitimate concerns about the cost, most people recognise that a couple of pounds a year on energy bills (because that is all we are talking about) is a price worth paying for a fast-expanding green industry that promises to break the stranglehold of incumbent energy suppliers and could deliver low-cost energy within five years. It is now up to the government to deliver the clarity the industry deserves, and it should start by dropping its latest appeal and releasing details on the next wave of proposed changes to the feed-in tariff scheme. Sadly, today's court ruling does not mark the end to this long-running saga. But the industry will remain hopeful that it could represent what one of the UK's rather more capable politicians once referred to as the "end of the beginning". &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c207691/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Solar+court+ruling+%E2%80%93+the+end+of+the+beginning%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2141297%2Fsolar-court-ruling-beginning%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DSolar%2Bcourt%2Bruling%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2Bthe%2Bend%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bbeginning%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Solar+court+ruling+%E2%80%93+the+end+of+the+beginning%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2141297%2Fsolar-court-ruling-beginning%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DSolar%2Bcourt%2Bruling%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2Bthe%2Bend%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bbeginning%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:16:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2141297/solar-court-ruling-beginning?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Solar+court+ruling+%E2%80%93+the+end+of+the+beginning%3F</guid></item><item><title>The carbon bubble will burst - we must be prepared this time</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c1049be/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C2140A6680Ccarbon0Ebubble0Eburst0Eprepared0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FThe0Kcarbon0Kbubble0Kwill0Kburst0K0E0Kwe0Kmust0Kbe0Kprepared0Kthis0Ktime/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Chimney emitting pollution at Conesville power plant" src="/IMG/295/163295/conesville-power-plant-185x114.jpg?1298305106" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The Carbon Tracker Initiative should be talk of the town in Davos, the fact it won't be suggests we are heading for another crash &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; This is really important. No matter where you stand in the green debate, the threat posed by the systemic over valuation of carbon intensive firms and assets is a critical issue that should concern you - really, really concern you. Regardless of whether you are the most committed eco-warrior, the most pragmatic business leader, or the most unyielding climate sceptic, the failure to acknowledge the inherent risks of slapping triple A ratings on carbon intensive firms and assets that are incompatible with governments' climate policies and scientists' climate warnings risks fuelling a "carbon bubble" that could make the on-going fall out from the most recent global investment bubble look like a boom time. That is the warning currently being sounded by the recently launched Carbon Tracker Initiative, which last week released its second report on the scale of the so-called "carbon bubble" and wrote to Bank of England Governor Mervyn King urging him to take action. The two reports from the group - which is backed by some high profile green thinkers and investors, including the WWF, Solarcentury chairman Jeremy Leggett, former chief scientist Sir David King, and Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith - should be required reading for political leaders, business leaders, and economists everywhere. If there was any sense of proportion, it would be at the top of the agenda at this week's annual billionaire schmooze-fest at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The premise set out in the reports is simple, so simple it's terrifying. Many of the world's top indices are dominated by energy firms whose valuations are largely determined by the fossil fuel assets they hold directly or their ability to access the assets held by their suppliers. The stocks and shares of these companies are typically regarded as triple A rated, gold plated, low risk assets that are highly attractive to investors such as pension funds seeking stable long term returns. The only problem is that like the sub prime mortgages that sparked the crash of 2008, they are, from an environmental perspective, junk. According to a report last year from the Carbon Tracker Initiative, of the declared assets held by the top 100 listed coal companies and the top 100 listed oil and gas companies globally only 20 per cent can be burnt if the world is to hold any hope of limiting average temperature rises to 2°C (assuming of course we are not on the brink of the mass global roll out of successful carbon capture and storage technology). The valuations of 200 of the world's largest companies - companies who underpin our pensions and dominate global markets - are based to a huge extent on fossil fuel reserves that according to the stated climate change goals of the international community cannot be accessed. As the letter to King puts it,"the depth and breadth of our collective financial exposure to high carbon, extractive and environmentally unsustainable investments could become a major problem as we transition to a low carbon economy. Five of the top 10 FTSE 100 companies are almost exclusively high carbon and alone account for 25 per cent of the index's entire market capitalisation." Some optimistic analysts might argue valuations are based in part on these high carbon firms' ability to transform themselves into major players in the emerging low carbon economy, and in fairness some carbon intensive firms are taking steps to decarbonise. But this does not explain why many of those companies that have taken no real steps to diversify their operations remain highly rated, nor why something as risky as the complete transformation of a fossil fuel-based business model is not reflected in valuations or rating agency assessments. Others might argue that there is nothing wrong with the market, that climate change isn't happening, and that fossil fuel based energy firms offer one of the safest investment categories available. But this argument is not just scientifically illiterate; it also runs counter to the policy direction being pursued by countless governments around the world. You might not believe manmade climate change is happening, but the world's leaders do, and they are committed to doing something about it. They might not be acting as fast as environmentalists would like, but they are acting through measures such as carbon trading and taxes in the EU, Australia, California and soon China, vehicle fuel efficiency standards in jurisdictions around the world, and subsidies and incentives designed to make clean technologies more competitive. The valuations of fossil fuel-based assets do not appear to adequately reflect the risk posed to them by emerging policies purposefully designed to curb demand for their products. Just as with the pre-crash years, a huge investment bubble is being fuelled by the over valuation of assets where enormous systemic risks are being either mistakenly ignored or deliberately underplayed. And again, as with the 2008 crash, efforts to keep this bubble going are leading to staggering levels of corruption and lobbying designed to undermine any effort to bring the market back under control. The failure to acknowledge the long term environmental and legislative risks faced by high carbon firms continues to fuel the carbon bubble, undermining green policy efforts by sending out signals that the market (or at least the short-sighted ratings agencies, analysts, and investors who control the market) does not believe political and business leaders when they say they will build a low carbon economy. All of which in turn provides high carbon companies and investors with a further financial incentive to ignore the risks they face. Anyone doubting this analysis, witness the utter lack of controversy last week when BP issued an outlook suggesting global greenhouse gas emissions will rise 28 per cent by 2030. One of the world's largest firms tells investors its plans are largely based on a scenario that the vast majority of climate scientists believe will result in global catastrophe, and no one bats an eyelid. The question is what can now be done to correct this staggering market failure. If the last few years have taught us nothing (and I am starting to believe that they haven't), it is that we need to carefully deflate the bubble rather than sit back and watch it burst, taking the livelihoods, pensions, and savings of millions of people with it. In order to achieve this managed decline we first need to properly understand the scale and reach of the problem. Think tanks and policymakers with even the vaguest interest in market failures or environmental economics need to pick up on the work pioneered by the Carbon Tracker Initiative. Meanwhile, Sir Mervyn King needs to respond immediately to last week's letter, confirming that hw will use his role as chair of the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) to as requested "investigate how the UK's exposure to high carbon investments might pose a systemic risk to our financial system". Next, steps need to be taken to give investors and pension funds proper visibility over the carbon bubble. The government could start this process by finally giving the green light to long-awaited mandatory carbon reporting rules for listed firms, which many investors and big businesses are calling for. Similarly, governments the world over should build on emerging US efforts to ensure firms report annually on the climate-related risks they face. Give enough investors enough visibility over climate risks and the market might just start to do its job again. Finally, politicians and regulators need to grow a backbone and use their bully's pulpit to stand up to the ratings agencies and carbon intensive lobbyists who refuse to believe low carbon policies will prove successful. There needs to be a consistent and vocal campaign to convince the market that high carbon assets are loaded with environmental and regulatory risks that investors need to be aware of. For the last 20 years, politicians and regulators were asleep at the wheel, allowing a bubble to inflate which when it burst pushed the global economy to the brink of collapse. Less than four years on and there is ample evidence precisely the same thing is happening again, only this time it is both the global economy and the global ecosystem that could collapse. Investors, pension funds, politicians, and business leaders all need to wake up to these risks, and fast. As I said at the start, this is really important. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1c1049be/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=The+carbon+bubble+will+burst+-+we+must+be+prepared+this+time&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2140668%2Fcarbon-bubble-burst-prepared%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2Bcarbon%2Bbubble%2Bwill%2Bburst%2B-%2Bwe%2Bmust%2Bbe%2Bprepared%2Bthis%2Btime" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=The+carbon+bubble+will+burst+-+we+must+be+prepared+this+time&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2140668%2Fcarbon-bubble-burst-prepared%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2Bcarbon%2Bbubble%2Bwill%2Bburst%2B-%2Bwe%2Bmust%2Bbe%2Bprepared%2Bthis%2Btime" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996137751/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c1049be/kg/294-295/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123996137751/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1c1049be/kg/294-295/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:50:28 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2140668/carbon-bubble-burst-prepared?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=The+carbon+bubble+will+burst+-+we+must+be+prepared+this+time</guid></item><item><title>Could Scottish independence spell problems for UK renewables?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1bc2bcae/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21371620Cscottish0Eindependence0Espell0Euk0Erenewables0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FCould0KScottish0Kindependence0Kspell0Kproblems0Kfor0KUK0Krenewables0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="General Electric wind turbine" src="/IMG/886/196886/ge-eo-eolico1-185x114.jpg?1317721638" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Insiders bemoan “deeply unhelpful” uncertainty caused by prospective independence referendum &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Given the politically charged nature of the potential break-up of the United Kingdom, it is hardly surprising that the plight of just one industry has not been granted a central role in the increasingly fractious debate over Scotland's pursuit of independence. But as Prime Minister David Cameron and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond continue to butt heads over the timing and nature of Scotland's promised independence referendum, it is worth asking how the uncertainty created by both the imminent plebiscite and the prospect of full independence will impact a renewables industry that Salmond has already designated as essential to the future health of the nation. Scotland's enviable wind and wave resources mean that in the long term the country will have a crucial role to play in the UK's fast-expanding renewable energy sector, regardless of whether or not it actually remains part of the UK. Salmond has talked eloquently about making the country the "Saudi Arabia of clean energy" and it is already established as one of the world's leading clean tech hubs, with a raft of offshore wind, biomass, carbon capture and storage, and marine energy projects either in operation or in the pipeline. And yet, the pursuit of independence at best introduces an element of risk into the Scottish, and by extension British, renewable energy strategy, and at worst could result in significant disruption to this emerging industry. The potential for disruption first reared its head last autumn with a controversial research note from investment firm Citigroup, which warned that the potential impact of secession on UK-wide renewable energy subsidy mechanisms meant "utilities and other investors should exercise extreme caution in committing further capital to Scotland". The report was immediately dismissed by the Scottish government as "alarmist", with ministers arguing the potential to export renewable energy to England meant its renewables sector would continue to prosper post break-up. A separate report from Altium Securities then emerged suggesting an independent Scotland would not necessarily harm renewable energy investment. But the question of whether or not independence will benefit or hamper the renewables sector has not gone away and it looks certain to intensify as the row over the timing and nature of any referendum intensifies. Few people within the industry are willing to go on the record to discuss an issue as politically charged and historically significant as the end of the 300-year union between the two countries. But privately, concerns are mounting. One industry insider I spoke to described the prospect of a referendum in autumn 2014, as promised by Salmond, as "deeply unhelpful" and "hugely concerning". He also said he was "baffled" by Salmond's decision to push for independence as early as 2014, noting that if he waited until later in the decade the country would have been able to build out its renewable energy infrastructure under the current subsidy regimes, establishing itself as a major net energy exporter before then seeking secession. Concerns centre on what would happen to the existing UK-wide Renewables Obligation and feed-in tariff subsidy mechanisms and the proposed contract for difference feed-in tariff scheme when and if Scotland breaks with the rest of the UK. These mechanisms all work by effectively channelling levies on energy bills to provide revenue support to renewable energy projects. But with a disproportionate number of renewables projects to the north of the border and a disproportionate number of energy consumers to the south, the continuation of this mechanism post-independence would effectively result in English consumers subsidising Scottish projects – a scenario that would prove as politically unpalatable in Westminster as the prospect of the end of the union itself. Some developers are pretty sanguine about any changes that would result. One Scottish developer I spoke to argued there was already a perfectly effective cross-border energy market in place between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, not to mention interconnectors between England and the continent. Meanwhile, all the indications from the EU are that by the time Scotland does seek independence there will be yet more harmonisation of the bloc's energy market, making it easier still to support a continent-wide super grid where renewable energy is continuously transmitted across borders. Steps would obviously have to be taken to re-jig UK renewable energy subsidy schemes, the argument goes, but this should not be beyond the wit of man or power-crazed politician. However, even those who reckon Scottish independence would do little to dampen the long-term prospects of the UK's burgeoning renewables sector acknowledge the latest round of referendum talk does introduce another degree of risk and uncertainty for investors and developers considering clean energy projects north of Hadrian's Wall. Moreover, there is little evidence on either side of the border that this issue is being looked at in any depth by the government's in Westminster or Edinburgh. Salmond's response to the Citigroup report boiled down to "don't worry, it'll all be fine", while DECC responded to my inquiries about developers' concerns by advising that it was too early for the government to stake out a hypothetical position. Yet when decisions on capital intensive, low carbon energy projects are made on the basis of payback periods that can run into decades, it is likely the risks posed by potential independence are already being factored into project plans. Of course, none of this is to suggest Scotland should not seek a referendum and then follow the will of its people. The Scottish government has a clear electoral mandate and its people have a democratic right to self-determination. But regardless of whether or not Scotland's future lies as part of the UK or not, it definitely has a future as a world-leading renewable energy market. And if that green future is to be realised, investors need to urgently see some clarification on how this exciting market would operate should the Braveheart tendency prove successful in its pursuit of freedom. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1bc2bcae/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Could+Scottish+independence+spell+problems+for+UK+renewables%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2137162%2Fscottish-independence-spell-uk-renewables%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DCould%2BScottish%2Bindependence%2Bspell%2Bproblems%2Bfor%2BUK%2Brenewables%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Could+Scottish+independence+spell+problems+for+UK+renewables%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2137162%2Fscottish-independence-spell-uk-renewables%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DCould%2BScottish%2Bindependence%2Bspell%2Bproblems%2Bfor%2BUK%2Brenewables%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123995205147/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1bc2bcae/kg/268-281-294-295-300-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123995205147/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1bc2bcae/kg/268-281-294-295-300-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:08:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2137162/scottish-independence-spell-uk-renewables?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Could+Scottish+independence+spell+problems+for+UK+renewables%3F</guid></item><item><title>Could HS2 move green infrastructure out of the sidings?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1bb04dbf/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C213650A10Chs20Egreen0Einfrastructure0Esidings0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FCould0KHS20Kmove0Kgreen0Kinfrastructure0Kout0Kof0Kthe0Ksidings0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="railway" src="/IMG/360/206360/railway-1-185x114.jpg?1325760826" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The government's green light for the High Speed 2 rail offers hope to the wider green economy &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Occasionally, a story comes along that offers such a compelling insight into the wider issues that inform it, that the standard 500-word summaries of what has happened feel strangely inadequate. What you really need is a comprehensively researched book, and even this would probably fall short of truly explaining what is happening. The High Speed 2 (HS2) rail line and the government's decision to approve the project is one such story. The proposed £32bn project crystallises so many of the challenges and opportunities presented by the low-carbon economy that it almost feels like a test – a chance to determine the pace and direction of the UK's green economy. Virtually every significant debate impacting those business leaders and policymakers committed to slashing the UK's carbon emissions is present and correct in the row surrounding the decision over the HS2 line. Firstly, there is the predictable scrap between supporters and opponents of the project over whether or not the scheme will deliver promised emissions reductions and economic benefits. It is a fight that is familiar to anyone who follows the renewable energy industry, with dubious assumptions and suspect methodologies being used to strengthen or weaken the case for investment based on the stance of the party commissioning the report. This plays into the broader tension between the low-carbon economy and conservation groups, which accept the need to tackle climate change as long as it does not impact their back yard. Again, it is a fight familiar to every proposed wind farm, tidal array or nuclear power plant, whereby the impact of low-carbon infrastructure on local environments results in intense opposition and huge planning delays to projects that would otherwise deliver net environmental benefits. Then there is the opportunity cost debate over whether the money spent on one green project would be better spent on another more effective green project. As Friends of the Earth eloquently argued this morning, should we be ploughing £32bn into a high-speed rail network that will only deliver net emissions reductions years down the line, when the same money could be used to improve existing rail and bus networks that are shown to cut emissions now and are desperately in need of upgrading? It echoes the argument, presented in a different context by those who question whether we should subsidise solar panels when it is more cost effective to cut emissions by supporting energy efficiency measures. Finally, HS2 offers a perfect case study of the continuous debate surrounding the future mix of low-carbon technologies. Do we need high-speed rail at all when electric cars will decarbonise road transport and video conferencing means we'll all be travelling less anyway? Do we need renewables when nuclear and carbon capture and storage could provide an alternative? Should we look to cut emissions from global supply chains, or should we scrap those supply chains altogether in favour of more localised networks? All these debates are valid and important. We need to be as certain as possible that low-carbon projects will deliver net emissions reductions and benefits to the economy, respect local environments, be among the most cost-effective emissions reductions available, and not become white elephants that are quickly overhauled by alternative green technologies. But there is a real danger that these debates are becoming self-defeating – a recipe for inertia and indecision at a time when urgent action is required to deliver the deep emissions cuts we need over the next two decades. As Greg Barker argued last week, the low-carbon transition the UK has embarked upon is far more ambitious and wide-ranging than the vast majority of people yet understand. The scale of this transition means that if any project can adequately show it will deliver emissions reductions and economic benefits, then it needs serious consideration. If some areas are disrupted as a result of these low-carbon infrastructure projects, then that's a price that needs to be paid. And projects must be seen as part of a wide-ranging green infrastructure portfolio, not necessarily replacements for one another. Short of inventing a crystal ball, we can never be certain that green projects will deliver all their promised benefits. Over the coming years there will undoubtedly be well-meaning projects that result in unfortunate unintended consequences. But there comes a point where the arguing and risk modeling has to stop and we have to get on and start building. I always find the "climate change is like a war analogy" a touch distasteful, but it is still worth noting that when Britain faced an existential threat in 1939 it did not respond with years of reviews on which was the most effective fighter aircraft or battleship design – it got building the military infrastructure that would be needed. The government's decision today to approve the HS2 line suggests it might just understand this new reality. Ministers have evidently been satisfied that on the balance of evidence the project will deliver net economic benefits, and while they are not stressing potential environmental gains there is an acceptance that HS2 can play a key role in the UK's future low-carbon infrastructure, particularly given it will be completed around the same time as major new energy projects such as promised nuclear reactors, carbon capture and storage plants, and increased renewable energy capacity. Now the onus is on the government to ensure HS2 moves from providing a case study for the debates that inform the planning stage of green infrastructure projects to becoming a case study on how to deliver an effective low-carbon infrastructure project. More research urgently needs to be done on how to ensure the new network delivers net emissions reductions by drawing power from decarbonised energy sources, maximising operating efficiency, offering a cost-effective alternative to domestic flights and car travel, and freeing up other parts of the rail network to provide improved freight and commuter services. Equally, greater urgency needs to be injected into the timetable for the project. Former Labour transport minister Lord Adonis was right yesterday to call on the government to deliver legislation enabling the project this year rather than tread water for two further years. I know building an infrastructure project of national significance is not exactly an easy undertaking, but it seems ridiculous that it will take until 2026 to deliver the link to Birmingham when China can add hundreds of miles of high-speed rail each year. Overcome these challenges and get HS2 right, and we might finally have the template and  confidence we need to deliver the wider green overhaul of the UK's energy, building and transport infrastructure that is so urgently required – and that really would be worth writing a book about. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1bb04dbf/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://share.feedsportal.com/viral/sendEmail.cfm?lang=en&amp;title=Could+HS2+move+green+infrastructure+out+of+the+sidings%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2136501%2Fhs2-green-infrastructure-sidings%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DCould%2BHS2%2Bmove%2Bgreen%2Binfrastructure%2Bout%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bsidings%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Could+HS2+move+green+infrastructure+out+of+the+sidings%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2136501%2Fhs2-green-infrastructure-sidings%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DCould%2BHS2%2Bmove%2Bgreen%2Binfrastructure%2Bout%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bsidings%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123757092672/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1bb04dbf/kg/273-300-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/123757092672/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1bb04dbf/kg/273-300-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:54:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2136501/hs2-green-infrastructure-sidings?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Could+HS2+move+green+infrastructure+out+of+the+sidings%3F</guid></item><item><title>Are you part of Greg Barker’s “Environmental Taliban”?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b844d40/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21352320Cgreg0Ebarker0Es0Eenvironmental0Etaliban0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FAre0Kyou0Kpart0Kof0KGreg0KBarker0JE20J80A0J99s0K0JE20J80A0J9CEnvironmental0KTaliban0JE20J80A0J9D0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="US soldiers running on a desert road during a military operation" src="/IMG/774/125774/us-military-soldiers-army-war-185x114.jpg?1288959007" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Ministers should know better than to characterise critics as ideological extremists &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Is your business part of the "environmental Taliban" criticised this week by climate change minister Greg Barker? If you objected to the decision late last year to provide heavy industry with £250m of tax breaks, are angered by Chancellor George Osborne's anti-environmental rhetoric, and have not given full credit to the coalition's various green policies then you might just be. It is a realisation that raises plenty of questions. Should you envisage yourself as a courageous anti-imperial freedom fighter or accept that you are a despicable terrorist with a Stone Age value system? Should you, as WWF's George Smeeton satirically suggested on Twitter this morning, ensure a member of staff is stoned for 'catching a flight' or sack all women in your sustainability department for being women? If there is an "environmental Taliban" are those fighting against green policies "carbon intensive special forces"? And are there other bands of environmental terrorists, a "green Mujahideen", an "eco Eta", a splinter group "sustainability IRA"? I am, of course, being utterly facetious, but then again to align the environmental movement with one of the most brutal regimes on the planet was a pretty facetious comment to begin with. The problem is that Greg Barker's ill-judged phrase is indicative of a deterioration in relations between green groups and the government that is rapidly becoming a serious problem. As an excellent analysis in the Financial Times this morning reveals, the government's shift in favour of green policies that are more cost-effective may be entirely sensible and justified, but the anti-environmental rhetoric and the mishandling of flagship policies such as the solar feed-in tariff that has accompanied it has put a serious dent in investor confidence. As influential green investors told the FT, Chancellor George Osborne's anti-green rhetoric has made them "uneasy", while the solar feed-in tariff cuts fiasco has added to the cost of capital for clean energy projects. If you read the full FT interview in which Barker characterises elements of the green movement as "environmental Taliban", it becomes apparent that his rash phrase-making is the result of frustrations over the failure of green NGOs and businesses to appreciate the positive steps the government is taking, such as the Green Deal, the Green Investment Bank, and wider renewable energy policies. As he admits, he was "quite shocked about how some in the environmental lobby were so scathing about" the decision to offer £250m of support to carbon-intensive industries, arguing that it was a small sum compared to the protection offered to heavy industry in other countries. But if he wants to convince the environmental movement of the merits of the government's actions, it is unclear how he thinks characterising it as a nest of terrorist extremists will help. Barker has made two significant errors. First, the whole point of campaign groups is to be extreme. They take extreme positions and then try to edge opinion and policy in their direction – that is what they do. It is worth noting that there are also lobbyists who form what Barker is now under an obligation to describe as a "carbon Taliban". Most ministers accept the extremist nature of interest groups and either endure their constant carping or even welcome it as a beneficial part of the democratic process. The problem with resorting to name-calling is that it is at best demeaning for all involved, and at worst poisons relationships between ministers and groups they should engage with. It also fuels the sense of victimisation currently felt by many within the green movement. The worst description I can recall a minister levelling at climate sceptic and anti-environmental groups is Chris Huhne's accusation that green policies are attacked by "curmudgeons and fault-finders", which immediately sparked howls of outrage from some quarters. Secondly, and more importantly for green businesses and investors, Barker fails to appreciate that the government must shoulder much of the blame for its inability to secure the credit it deserves for progressive environmental policies. Taking the controversial £250m package of support for energy-intensive industries as just one example, the coalition could have made it more explicit why it is needed to combat carbon leakage, it could have offered clear assurances that the support would only go to energy-intensive firms that take positive steps to improve their energy efficiency, and it could have been positioned alongside funding commitments to help decarbonise the energy supplies these firms use. Instead it formed the centre-piece of a series of speeches from the Chancellor in which he branded environmental rules as a "burden" and unilaterally ended any ambition to make the UK a global leader in emissions reduction. For what it's worth, I broadly agree with Barker's complaint that the government is not getting enough credit for the positive green policy framework it is developing. But hostility towards the coalition's record is more a function of clumsy policy mistakes, such as the solar feed-in tariff fiasco, and ministers' failure to communicate the benefits of low carbon policies, than it is unreasonable expectations on the part of environmental campaigners. Of course, no one in the environmental movement is taking real offence at Barker's decision to lump them in with a bunch of horrifically brutal militants (they are not about to replicate the howls of outrage climate sceptics make every time they receive a perceived slight). But the phrasemaking does reveal a worrying tendency for the government to dismiss legitimate criticism of its environmental policies as the wailing of extremists, at a time when the vast majority of green businesses and NGOs simply want to work with the government to create a stable and affordable policy environment. Urging the government to show more ambition and competence in the pursuit of effective green policies does not make green business leaders part of an "environmental Taliban". In fact, if we have to stick with the crass Afghan analogy, it makes them brave volunteers in a fledgling army dedicated to building a more stable and prosperous future for their troubled state. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b844d40/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Are+you+part+of+Greg+Barker%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%9CEnvironmental+Taliban%E2%80%9D%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2135232%2Fgreg-barker-s-environmental-taliban%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DAre%2Byou%2Bpart%2Bof%2BGreg%2BBarker%25E2%2580%2599s%2B%25E2%2580%259CEnvironmental%2BTaliban%25E2%2580%259D%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Are+you+part+of+Greg+Barker%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%9CEnvironmental+Taliban%E2%80%9D%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2135232%2Fgreg-barker-s-environmental-taliban%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DAre%2Byou%2Bpart%2Bof%2BGreg%2BBarker%25E2%2580%2599s%2B%25E2%2580%259CEnvironmental%2BTaliban%25E2%2580%259D%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121586447212/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b844d40/kg/295-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121586447212/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b844d40/kg/295-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:50:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2135232/greg-barker-s-environmental-taliban?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Are+you+part+of+Greg+Barker%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%9CEnvironmental+Taliban%E2%80%9D%3F</guid></item><item><title>Time to draw the curtain on solar feed-in tariff farce</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b7f2eea/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21350A440Cdraw0Ecurtain0Esolar0Efeed0Etariff0Efarce0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FTime0Kto0Kdraw0Kthe0Kcurtain0Kon0Ksolar0Kfeed0Ein0Ktariff0Kfarce/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Solar array promens rooftop site beccles 3" src="/IMG/723/186723/solar-array-promens-rooftop-site-beccles-3-185x114.JPG?1311254608" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Today's appeal threatens yet more confusion - it is time for the government to admit its mistakes and deliver the clarity the industry craves &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Where did it all go wrong? Three months ago the solar industry was a shining success story in a UK renewables sector enjoying a period of unprecedented expansion. Three months on and a series of misjudgements and miscalculations means the sector has been thrown into a crippling period of limbo with several more months of costly confusion in the offing. Today the government will attempt to bring the crisis to some sort of resolution by appealing against last month's court ruling that the decision to effectively impose cuts to feed-in tariffs before the end of the consultation period was "retrospective" and "unlawful". But the chances of any real clarity being delivered as a result of the appeal hearing look remote. When issuing his ruling Judge Mitting offered a clear warning to the government that there was little chance an appeal would prove successful. Moreover, if the appeal is successful all we'll get is a return to the controversial plan to slash incentives for new installations completed after December 12, which according to many in the industry will lead to a significant contraction of the sector. In contrast, if the appeal is rejected we'll simply get a continuation of the current confusion over tariff levels with no clear indication on when cuts to feed-in tariffs will come into effect. Meanwhile, the entire renewables sector awaits the publication of a wider consultation on the feed-in tariff mechanism that was expected in 2011 but is still yet to appear. So where did it all go wrong? Only by understanding the causes of this fiasco can government and industry map out a solution to the current crisis and take steps to ensure the green economy is never again faced with such crippling policy confusion. The answer is as complicated as the legal case itself, with a number of different decisions by business leaders and ministers past and present all having to take a share of the blame. To understand the roots of this crisis we need to go right back to the development and the launch of the feed-in tariff scheme in April 2010. It may be politically convenient for coalition ministers to blame their Labour predecessors for passing on a scheme that was fatally flawed, just as it is more than a little hypocritical for Lib Dem and Conservative ministers to attack a scheme they fully supported at the time of its launch. But accusations that Labour leader Ed Miliband failed to recognise the fundamental weaknesses in the scheme during his final days as Energy and Climate Change Secretary are valid nonetheless. The failure to include a regression mechanism from the start of the scheme that would automatically reduce the rate of incentives as the cost of solar panels fell was a grave error, particularly given there was already evidence from other feed-in tariff schemes in Europe that such regression arrangements were required to stop solar sectors over-heating. This failure, coupled with underestimates for rates of solar deployment, made the current crisis significantly more likely. However, this fundamental fault in the scheme's foundations did not make an embarrassing government appearance in the High Court inevitable. The coalition has had over 18 months and plenty of opportunities to correct the weaknesses in the scheme and has instead turned an easily corrected flaw in the feed-in tariff's design into a crisis that threatens to obliterate the industry. The first opportunity to put the scheme on a firmer footing came with the Treasury's decision to cap feed-in tariff spending, a move that may have angered the industry but was understandable given mounting concerns over energy bills. It was at this point that someone should have realised that as soon as you impose a budget cap on a scheme you need a clear plan on what you are going to do if it looks like you are going to exceed that budget. No such plan was put in place, paving the way to the current crisis. A second opportunity to avoid disaster came last spring when the government launched a consultation proposing deep cuts to incentives for solar farms in response to initial fears that the scheme was over-heating and could exceed its budget. But in fixating on the inevitable howls of outrage from solar farm developers and the legitimate criticism of ministers' targeting of mid-sized as well as large solar farms, DECC failed to realise that a similar boom in the small scale solar market could also threaten the scheme's budget. It is also at this point that the solar sector has to take its share of the blame for the current situation. While a few insightful voices did indeed warn during the spring and summer that early cuts to all feed-in tariffs would be necessary to keep the scheme within budget, others continued to argue for the continuation of incentives that were offering excessive returns. Lobbyists for the solar industry complain legitimately that they do not get the access to ministers enjoyed by the Big Six energy companies, but a more united and co-ordinated lobbying effort could have helped ensure that necessary cuts to incentives were phased in more effectively over time. However, while climate minister Greg Barker has complained that there was only a handful of firms calling for early cuts to feed-in tariff incentives it is ultimately the responsibility of ministers to make the right calls at the right time. Instead, prevaricating through the summer and autumn allowed the solar boom to gather pace, boxing the government into a corner that it was always going to struggle to get out of. And then, upon finally realising that urgent action needed to be taken to stop the feed-in tariff scheme exceeding its budget, this long-running series of strategic errors was compounded by tactical missteps that made the government's defeat in the High Court all but inevitable. It is hard to imagine how the government got itself into a position where it thought that effectively imposing cuts to incentives before the end of the consultation proposing those self-same cuts was legally enforceable. In retrospect, proposals to bring cuts into effect from mid-January, coupled with a genuine effort to get the solar industry onside and ensure people understood the need to stop the scheme over-heating, and a quiet word with the Treasury suggesting some of the £250m earmarked for Eric Pickles bin collection crusade might be needed to relax the feed-in tariff spending cap, would have proved a much more effective course of action. So if that is where it all went wrong, where do we go from here? There is a very real risk that if the right decisions are not taken at this point catastrophe could be piled on crisis for the solar industry. If the government wins its appeal we will see a short term contraction of the market, coupled with very real fears that as solar panel prices continue to fall globally we could end up with a repeat of the current fiasco as the feed-in tariff scheme again approaches its spending cap. If the government loses its appeal we will effectively see a continuation of the 43p per kWh rate until mid-February at the earliest. This extension of the higher rate will increase the likelihood that the scheme will approach its spending cap, cranking up pressure on the government to impose still deeper cuts to incentives at a later date. Everything now depends on the number of installations that have been completed at the higher rate. Was the government right to predict that delaying the cuts to incentives until after the consultation was completed would risk the entire budget being burned through, or have ministers been guilty of scaremongering as the industry has claimed? The next batch of figures on installations will make fascinating reading, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that ministers angry over the court case and concerned about the scheme's budget could end up imposing even deeper cuts that kill off the industry once and for all. Instead, the conclusion of the appeal hearing should represent the point at which the curtain comes down on this farce. If the government is serious about delivering a successful UK solar industry and a confident renewables sector it needs to end the show with an immediate mea culpa detailing its mistakes, a commitment to not repeat them, and, most importantly, a detailed clarification on how incentives will be cut going forward. If that means more money has to be found in the short term to stop the scheme breaching its budget then that is the price ministers have to pay for their failure to act sooner. Ministers need to do now what they should have done in October: commit to cut incentives from February while also detailing how further cuts will be imposed at short notice if the market overheats again. For its part, the solar industry also needs to declare a truce (some of the attacks on Barker in particular have been unnecessary and counter-productive), commit to working with the government to develop a more sustainable incentive mechanism, and work harder to present a united front capable of making the case that solar technologies will be able to operate without incentives in just a few years' time. Only then will this rather sorry farce deliver a happy ending. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b7f2eea/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Time+to+draw+the+curtain+on+solar+feed-in+tariff+farce&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2135044%2Fdraw-curtain-solar-feed-tariff-farce%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DTime%2Bto%2Bdraw%2Bthe%2Bcurtain%2Bon%2Bsolar%2Bfeed-in%2Btariff%2Bfarce" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Time+to+draw+the+curtain+on+solar+feed-in+tariff+farce&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2135044%2Fdraw-curtain-solar-feed-tariff-farce%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DTime%2Bto%2Bdraw%2Bthe%2Bcurtain%2Bon%2Bsolar%2Bfeed-in%2Btariff%2Bfarce" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121586371571/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b7f2eea/kg/273-295-300/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121586371571/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b7f2eea/kg/273-295-300/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2135044/draw-curtain-solar-feed-tariff-farce?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Time+to+draw+the+curtain+on+solar+feed-in+tariff+farce</guid></item><item><title>2011: A year of progress and crisis</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b60a01b/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21337730C20A110Eprogress0Ecrisis0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0F20A110J3A0KA0Kyear0Kof0Kprogress0Kand0Kcrisis/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="An offshore wind farm" src="/IMG/238/119238/wind-3-185x114.jpg?1288106205" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; James Murray looks back on a year of climate deals, policy U-turns, and steady progress for the green economy &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; As the myriad end of year round ups have observed, 2011 defied expectation and explanation. The news agenda often appeared to spin out of control, globally significant story crashing into globally significant story, creating an overarching narrative of uncontrollable mayhem. To paraphrase the peerless Charlie Brooker, this was the year that Osama Bin Laden was killed, but you had probably forgotten that already. The green economy inevitably found itself caught up in this frenzy of news on a number of fronts, some obvious, others far less so. Most notably, the big environmental story of the year was a crisis. Fukushima followed in the ignoble footsteps of the BP oil spill, providing a tragic reminder of how vulnerable our energy infrastructure remains and how great the risks we take in order to generate the energy our economies need to function. The crisis also sparked one of those all too frequent bouts of intra-environmentalist conflict, with those opposed to nuclear energy spinning the disaster as evidence of the technology's inherent fallibility and those in favour (including the high-profile convert George Monbiot) arguing that the scale of the nuclear threat was hugely overblown. What is not disputed is that the fallout from Fukushima has had a huge impact on the short- to medium-term prospects of a global nuclear renaissance. The UK remains committed to a new fleet of reactors, but Japan, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and others quickly moved to roll back nuclear expansion plans or phase out nuclear power altogether. The long-term impact of these decisions should be a boost to investment in renewables, but in the shorter term these countries are likely to see emissions increase as they turn to coal and gas to replace lost nuclear capacity. Fossil fuels were also evident in one of the other big stories of the year: the Arab Spring. The enthralling and admirable wave of revolutions across some of the world's key oil producers helped keep oil prices above $100 a barrel mark despite the continuing economic woes crippling the industrialised world. They also provided a timely reminder of the huge energy insecurity the UK faces. Starting with the Libyan rebellion and ending with the first serious challenge to the Kremlin's power in over a decade, we were reminded time and again that the gas and oil imports of the UK and many other nations are supplied by a handful of deeply dubious regimes, many of which have secured power on the back of our fossil fuel payments and are perfectly happy to disrupt the supplies we rely on when challenged. There is a humanitarian, as well as an economic and environmental imperative, to delivering energy independence. On the domestic front, the big story for the green economy was a non-story. Or rather the government's decision to, publicly at least, push green issues down the political agenda. From summer riots to eurozone crises, royal weddings to Libyan bombing raids, the sheer number of economic and social challenges the coalition faced meant that the green economy was too often denied the oxygen of publicity. David Cameron did not give a single meaningful speech on the environment all year, Nick Clegg gave only one green speech that I can recall (and it was hardly that memorable), and George Osborne all but declared war on the green economy (and his Cabinet colleague Chris Huhne) with a staggeringly crass attempt to woo the Tory right by attacking the "burden" of environmental regulation and vowing that the UK would not lead the EU in cutting emissions. This lack of focus resulted in some comically clumsy mis-steps. The U-turn on forestry sell off plans revealed the government's failure to properly understand the depth of public feeling on environmental issues and its willingness to be bounced into a U-turn when faced with well organised protests - it is a lesson ministers may be forced to learn again if they continue with planning reforms that lack the environmental safeguards a fearsome array of green NGOs are calling for. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that a government that genuinely saw the green economy as a top priority would have allowed the chronic mis-handling of recent proposed cuts to solar feed-in tariffs. Leaving aside the debate over who is to blame for the market becoming over heated and to what level the tariffs should be cut, the handling of the changes has been laughably poor and the decision to effectively impose the cuts to incentives before the consultation period had ended appeared to be designed to invite a court case. And yet, despite the green economy being frequently overshadowed by the ever accelerating news cycle, significant progress has continued to be made, albeit without much fanfare. Recent government figures have shown that, despite the recession, the UK's green economy grew 4.3 per cent in 2010 and now employs over 900,000 people. These figures were backed up by a survey from the Co-operative Group showing that the green consumer market grew nine per cent last year. All the indications are that growth has continued this year with venture and capital investment continuing to flow towards clean tech firms and projects, and many green companies expanding rapidly. On the policy front, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has quietly got on with its business, laying the groundwork for new measures that should be formally launched over the next 18 months. The Renewable Heat Incentive is already up and running and poised to be expanded next year, the Green Investment Bank should begin making investments in some form or another next year, and the Green Deal will launch next autumn providing a spring board for huge investment in energy efficiency. Most importantly, the department has won most of the battles it has fought over electricity market reform and it appears increasingly likely that the UK will deliver an integrated policy framework that drives huge investment in low carbon energy generation. This gradual yet inexorable progress was mirrored at the UN's climate summit in Durban, where a deal was struck that finally commits all nations to delivering a legal treaty for tackling climate change. Similarly, we saw Australia finally agree its carbon tax, California move towards the launch of its long-promised carbon trading scheme, and China unveil a new five-year plan that will deliver an unparalleled increase in low carbon infrastructure investment. Inevitably, business leaders have responded to this progress, although, like their political counterparts, they have not made a great fuss about it. In the UK, we have seen companies such as Siemens, GE, Vestas, Nissan, Mitsubishi and many others announce plans to open clean tech factories in the UK, creating jobs and proving that the UK can play a major role in the fast expanding markets for wind turbine and electric car technologies. In particular, the UK's position as a global leader in offshore wind energy looks increasingly assured as work gets underway off the east coast on one of the largest engineering projects anywhere in the world. This surge in offshore wind farm investment helped Scotland deliver a record year for investment in renewable energy with barely a week seeming to pass without the announcement of new wave, tidal, wind, hydro-electric, biomass or waste-to-energy plant. In the much maligned City, we saw the first indications of how large-scale green finance could be mobilised through mechanisms such as the Climate Bonds Initiative, the increasingly influential Carbon Disclosure Project, and a growing realisation among insurers that they need to develop a coherent response to climate change, and fast. Meanwhile, BT quietly continued with a major smart meter project that promises to slash emissions from its huge estate, while thousands of offices and households were convinced of the merits of solar energy, making renewable energy an increasingly common component of our towns and cities (interestingly a Sunday Times poll revealed that we were pretty happy about this progress with clear majorities supporting wind and solar power). Electric cars made slower progress, but the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi iMiEV helped prepare the market for the emergence of a fleet of electric and plug-in hybrid cars over the next two years. Finally, Facebook finished the year by making peace with Greenpeace and committing to switching wherever possible to renewable energy, increasing in one swoop global demand for clean energy and sending a clear signal to utilities around the world that progressive corporate clients want green power. As with the wider news agenda, the green economy experienced a year where at times things appeared to be spinning out of control, a year where twisted priorities and vested interests conspired to create an unremittingly bleak outlook - and yet all the while people quietly continued to invest time, energy, and money in the creation of a green economy that will prove more resilient, more prosperous, and more sustainable than the polluting economy with which we are currently burdened. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b60a01b/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=2011%3A+A+year+of+progress+and+crisis&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2133773%2F2011-progress-crisis%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3D2011%253A%2BA%2Byear%2Bof%2Bprogress%2Band%2Bcrisis" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=2011%3A+A+year+of+progress+and+crisis&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2133773%2F2011-progress-crisis%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3D2011%253A%2BA%2Byear%2Bof%2Bprogress%2Band%2Bcrisis" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121585950977/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b60a01b/kg/273-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121585950977/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b60a01b/kg/273-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2133773/2011-progress-crisis?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=2011%3A+A+year+of+progress+and+crisis</guid></item><item><title>The solar industry has no need to worry about BP's exit</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b29c7f9/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21341540Csolar0Eindustry0Eworry0Ebps0Eexit0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FThe0Ksolar0Kindustry0Khas0Kno0Kneed0Kto0Kworry0Kabout0KBP0J27s0Kexit/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Solar array promens rooftop site beccles 3" src="/IMG/723/186723/solar-array-promens-rooftop-site-beccles-3-185x114.JPG?1311254608" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; James Murray argues the shakeout currently underway in the solar sector is an encouraging sign of maturity &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Five years ago news that one of the world's largest companies planned to quit the solar industry because it "simply can't make any money" would have been a devastating blow to the sector's self-confidence and credibility – but not anymore. BP's decision, reported yesterday, that it is to close its 40-year-old solar division will not make one iota of difference to the fast-expanding global market for solar technologies. In fact, its conclusion that solar has become a low-margin commoditised market where it is very difficult to make money only serves to highlight the growing attractiveness of solar technologies. It might not feel this way to those companies that will be forced to the wall, but commoditisation is the best thing that can happen to the solar industry. As with all industries, the shakeout we are currently seeing is a sign of growing maturity. A maturity that will lead to more M&amp;A activity, more specialisation, more economies of scale and, hence, lower-cost solar panels which, if current trends continue, will be cost competitive with coal some time around 2015. Of course, no one wants to see a monopoly and regulators will have to be careful not to allow one or two solar firms to build market dominance. But the concentration of the market around a reasonable number of large players promises to only accelerate the fall in prices. What of BP's argument that you can't make money from solar? Well, as in any commoditised market, there is money to be made, but only if you are a highly efficient and competitive operation. Those companies exiting the market might complain that they are unable to compete with unfairly subsidised Chinese competitors (hence recent calls for the US to investigate whether Chinese solar imports breach trade rules); they might even have a point; but life is not fair and the best managed and most innovative solar firms are still finding ways to survive and prosper in a competitive market. Meanwhile, investors as varied as Google, Warren Buffett, French oil giant Total, electronics goliath Sharp, and countless venture capitalists are brushing aside fears of low margins and flocking to play a role in a fast-expanding market with huge growth potential. All of this is great news for those green businesses keen to deploy solar energy who will continue to see prices fall, and even better news for the global climate which should start to see solar and other low-cost renewables gradually displace fossil fuels. Meanwhile, BP can get back to what it is good at, which, depending on your point of view, is either mortgaging the future by continuing to invest in unsustainable oil extraction, or diversifying into alternative energy technologies, such as second-generation biofuels that were always a better fit for an oil major than solar panel manufacturing. Either way, the solar industry will continue to prosper without the presence of the oil giant. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b29c7f9/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=The+solar+industry+has+no+need+to+worry+about+BP%27s+exit&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2134154%2Fsolar-industry-worry-bps-exit%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2Bsolar%2Bindustry%2Bhas%2Bno%2Bneed%2Bto%2Bworry%2Babout%2BBP%2527s%2Bexit" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=The+solar+industry+has+no+need+to+worry+about+BP%27s+exit&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2134154%2Fsolar-industry-worry-bps-exit%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2Bsolar%2Bindustry%2Bhas%2Bno%2Bneed%2Bto%2Bworry%2Babout%2BBP%2527s%2Bexit" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121585389684/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b29c7f9/kg/295/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121585389684/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b29c7f9/kg/295/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2134154/solar-industry-worry-bps-exit?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=The+solar+industry+has+no+need+to+worry+about+BP%27s+exit</guid></item><item><title>The Durban Deal was done, but what next?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b18959f/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C2133720A0Cdurban0Edeal0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FThe0KDurban0KDeal0Kwas0Kdone0J2C0Kbut0Kwhat0Knext0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="James Murray is the editor of BusinessGreen" src="/IMG/034/164034/james-murray-185x114.jpg?1298907758" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; James Murray runs down the scenarios businesses face as a result of Durban Agreement &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; More than a week has passed since the dramatic conclusion of the Durban Summit, and still there appears to be little in the way of a consensus on whether the platform for action agreed in the early hours represents an historic breakthrough or yet another disastrous delay. But the debate between the small band of obsessives who closely observe every twist and turn in the tortuously complex UN negotiating process (and yes, I do count myself amongst them) is little more than an intriguing sideshow to those businesses that will ultimately have to deliver the emission reductions and clean tech investments promised in Durban. All that business leaders, analysts, and sustainability executives want to know now is what will the Durban deal practically deliver over the next five to 10 years, and what is the liklihood of its various promises being realised. Taking just one example, aviation and shipping firms will be desparate to try and ascertain the probability of them facing a global fuel or emissions levy within the next nine years. If the probability is high, and I'd argue that it is, then it is in their interest to invest in more fuel efficient and low carbon technologies as quickly as possible. If the probability remains low, then environmentally progressive firms need to invest more in pushing politicians to deliver the global emission reduction regime that would eradicate the trade distortions that may result from regional schemes such as the EU's inclusion of aviation in its emissions trading scheme. Sadly, less progressive firms may also respond to any suggestion that a global regime may not be realised this decade by stepping up lobbying to oppose such a plan. The problem is that assessing the various probabilities Durban throws up is maddeningly complex and reliant on a huge number of external factors. We are dealing not just with climate science and clean technologies, but also geo-politics and global economics. A lot can change very quickly. However, what is certain following the outcome of the Durban Summit is that for the first time we have a global climate change plan that stretches through to end of the decade. It is a pretty sketchy plan, but it is a plan, and importantly it is a plan that all of the world's major economies have signed up to. As has been widely reported all nations have agreed to deliver a legal treaty by 2015 that will then be enacted by 2020. It now seems pretty certain the EU will be virtually alone in extending the Kyoto Protocol, signing up to legally binding targets through to 2020 that will almost certainly remain the same as the legal targets already agreed amongst the bloc. Meanwhile, other nations will remain wedded to the voluntary action plans submitted after the Cancun Summit. However, while the make up of the eventual treaty remains the subject of speculation, it is possible for business analysts to map out various scenarios that should help inform their green strategies and investments. The first scenario, or plan A, would see the talks continue along the lines that virtually all the parties claim they want to see. Four years of undoubtedly tough negotiations would culminate in all parties upping their ambition and agreeing to significantly more demanding emission reduction targets and action plans. Under a global and legally-binding monitoring and verification regime all major economies would agree to deliver deep cuts in greenhouse emissions, albeit at different rates with the emerging powerhouses of the BASIC economies given a bit more leeway while still being required to cut emissions. The US and EU, meanwhile, would agree to even deeper cuts and pledge to deliver billions of dollars of investment to help the poorest nations cut emissions and adapt to inevitable climate change. This new regime would be supported by a global carbon offsetting market and an ambitious forest protection scheme, as well as a Green Climate Fund reliant on global aviation and shipping levies and other green taxes. Most significantly, the targets would be realised through a series of clean technology breakthroughs that would deliver renewable energy and zero emission transport at a lower cost than current technologies. This optimistic scenario will only be realised if the second plasuible scenario is avoided. Should President Obama lose next year's election then the Qatar climate summit would be condemned to failure before it has even begun. It is easy to imagine a President Gingrich or Romney turning their back on the entire UN process as one of their first actions once taking office, just as it is easy to envisage a second term Obama without control of Congress agreeing to a global UN climate treaty but finding himself unable to get it ratified. Equally, the collapse of the Eurozone could force the EU to relinquish its leadership position on climate change as populist governments turn inwards and push the low carbon economy down the political agenda. Or alternatively rapid growth in India, China or Brazil could force their governments to temporarily shelve their climate change rhetoric in pursuit of yet more coal-fuelled expansion. Against this backdrop it would be extremely easy for those countries that so wished to sabotage the four year negotiating period up to 2015 by refusing to compromise or demanding excessive concessions from other nations. The net result would be either the collapse of the talks or the cobbling together of a weak, face-saving agreement barely worth the paper it is written on. Either way, you'd almost certainly see those countries that are fully committed to the development of a low carbon economy forging bi-lateral agreements with their peers and erecting trade barriers to protect them from unfair competition from carbon intensive economies. Clean technologies would continue to progress, but at a slower rate with protectionism increasingly the norm. Attention would inevitably shift to climate adaptation as it became increasingly apparent that keeping temperature increases below two degrees could not be realised. Both these extreme scenarios are plausible, but as with most attempts at crystal ball gazing the most likely outcome lies somewhere in between. I'd argue that the continuing increase in low carbon investment and the unrelenting improvement in clean technologies means that on balance we are likely to get some form of global climate treaty agreed by 2015 that will either be enacted by all countries, or all countries bar the US, depending on the outcome of the next two presidential elections. The precise nature of this agreement is impossible to guess, while Canada's exit from the Kyoto Protocol provides a vivid reminder that securing a "legal" treaty offers no guarantee it will not be flouted. However, there are some intriguing clues. It was informative that the Durban Summit saw a relatively early agreement on the structure of the Green Climate Fund and the emergence of a general consensus around the merits of emissions levies on aviation and shipping. Businesses should be planning for the emergence of such levies and the funnelling of hundreds of billions of dollars to clean energy and climate adaptation projects in poorer nations, creating huge commercial opportunities in the process. Similarly, the future of carbon trading mechanisms and forest protection schemes looks pretty assured and companies looking for a growth market should be playing close attention as these schemes mature ahead of the agreement of a treaty that would give them a further boost. On a less positive note, while it is plausible that a legal treaty will be agreed it is far less plausible that it will feature sufficiently ambitious emission reduction commitments and robust enforcement mechanisms. Barring a remarkable series of concessions, the gap between the US, EU, India, and China visible at Durban looks too big to bridge anytime soon. Over the next four years we will see ever more fractious rows over historical responsibility for climate change, levels of climate funding, levels of ambition, and the bleak future faced by poorer nations. None of them will be resolved easily. As such, businesses will have to plan for an increased focus on climate adaptation and resilience over the coming decades. Meanwhile, we will all have to hope that technologists can deliver a breakthrough that can remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere. This is not to say we will need to see mad scientists embarking on reckless geo-engineering projects, more that so-called "carbon negative" proposals that promise to soak up and then store carbon dioxide will have an important role to play even if we see an international climate treaty agreed in 2015. Business leaders need to be aware of each of these potential scenarios and step up green investments accordingly, as it is only once one of these scenarios has been realised that we will know whether Durban represented a success or a failure. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1b18959f/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=The+Durban+Deal+was+done%2C+but+what+next%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2133720%2Fdurban-deal%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2BDurban%2BDeal%2Bwas%2Bdone%252C%2Bbut%2Bwhat%2Bnext%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=The+Durban+Deal+was+done%2C+but+what+next%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2133720%2Fdurban-deal%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2BDurban%2BDeal%2Bwas%2Bdone%252C%2Bbut%2Bwhat%2Bnext%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121585462349/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b18959f/kg/295-300-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121585462349/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1b18959f/kg/295-300-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:10:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2133720/durban-deal?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=The+Durban+Deal+was+done%2C+but+what+next%3F</guid></item><item><title>Official: Brits love wind farms</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1af0ec69/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21326490Cofficial0Ebrits0Elove0Ewind0Efarms0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FOfficial0J3A0KBrits0Klove0Kwind0Kfarms/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Siemens 3MW direct drive turbine" src="/IMG/515/187515/3mw-direct-drive-turbine-185x114.jpg?1311772764" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The explosive results from YouGov confirm it, a clear majority supports more renewable energy projects &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; I always thought it was down to the fact I don't get out much. I have very rarely met anyone opposed to wind farms and other forms of renewable energy. In fact, in the past four years, outside of briefings with anti wind farm groups, I can recall just two conversations where people expressed opposition to wind turbines. One with a nuclear scientist who maintained harvesting wind could never compete with next generation nuclear technologies as a means of producing low carbon energy, and another with someone who (entirely understandably) did not want to see wind turbines in the Lake District National Park. The vast majority of people I have spoken to about wind farms and renewable energy (if you introduce yourself as an environmental journalist, it comes up a lot) will quickly admit that "actually, I really rather like wind turbines". Having been bombarded with negative media stories characterising wind turbines as noisy eyesores, people tend to think it is a somehow controversial position to be in favour of wind turbines, admitting in a vaguely confessional tone that they think they are "rather majestic" or "really quite nice to look at". The consensus amongst my friends and acquaintances was clear, but I always assumed the sample was skewed. That the environmentally minded, generally urban circles I move in would naturally support renewable energy, while countless millions across the country remained fiercely opposed to wind farms and costly renewable energy technologies. I knew the many myths, revived again this week by the Adam Smith Institute, that suggest renewable energy is technically unviable and horrendously expensive were largely baseless. Not least because I have seen how Germany, Spain and Texas integrate large amounts of renewables into their grid, analysed the data showing how the cost of wind and solar power is falling fast, and spoken at length with the National Grid about the entirely surmountable technical and economic challenges they will face in shifting towards renewable power. But I always assumed that there was a large rump of public opinion that was fiercely opposed to renewable energy technologies and the subsidies necessary to roll them out - after all, that is precisely what the media suggests. How wrong I was. The latest YouGov Sunday Times poll contains what should be regarded as an explosive set of results for the UK's renewable energy sector and the government's underfire green policies. The survey of nearly 1,700 people was carried out towards the end of November, following months during which the right wing press has waged an increasingly virulent campaign against climate change, wind farms, renewable energy, and the green levies that pay for it. And yet a clear and significant majority remains firmly in favour of renewable energy subsidies, wind farms, and solar installations. The figures deserve repeating. Nearly three quarters want to see more solar power and 56 per cent want more wind farms, compared to only 35 per cent who want more nuclear and 16 per cent who want more coal power. More significant still, a whopping 60 per cent think it is right for the government to subsidise wind farms to encourage investment in new capacity, compared to just 26 per cent who oppose such policies and 15 per cent who don't know. Similarly, 47 per cent think wind farms are a realistic way of combating climate change, compared to 36 per cent who don't, with the remainder unsure. Meanwhile, over two thirds think solar power can realistically combat climate change. The results get even more interesting when you drill down by voting intention, age, and region. Support for more solar power is solid across all demographics, while support for more wind farms varies, with older people and Conservative voters more likely to be opposed - although even here a strong minority of 43 per cent of people who intend to vote Tory are in favour of wind power (interestingly Conservative voters are also most likely to oppose coal and oil-fired power plants and show the greatest support for nuclear with 48 per cent wanting more nuclear power plants). Moreover, on the crucial question of whether subsidies to support renewable power are right or wrong a clear majority think they are right across all demographics and age groups, bar the over 60s where only 48 per cent think they are right (although even here only 42 per cent think they are definitely wrong with the remaining 10 per cent undecided). With the notable exception of the solar feed-in tariff cuts, which judging by the results many people would like to see rethought, the results appear to offer a ringing endorsement of the government's renewable energy policies. Inevitably, there are caveats. It is interesting that support for solar energy exceeds support for more intrusive wind farms and as we've seen time and again opposition to renewable energy developments can harden when they move from being hypothetical to become a physical entity in your neighbourhood. The results also suggest that the right wing press does to an extent know its readers and there is a Conservative voter bias against renewable energy, although this is far less pronounced than many commentators would have you believe and as a rule more Conservative voters are in favour of renewables than are opposed. Whichever way you cut it, you can not get away from the core conclusion from this poll: People love solar power, they like wind farms, and they are in favour of renewable energy subsidies. It is too much to ask that the vociferous minority opposing renewable energy will reflect on these results and call off their media attack dogs. But for the government's green agenda and the UK's low carbon economy they are the best kind of early Christmas present. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1af0ec69/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Official%3A+Brits+love+wind+farms&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2132649%2Fofficial-brits-love-wind-farms%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DOfficial%253A%2BBrits%2Blove%2Bwind%2Bfarms" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Official%3A+Brits+love+wind+farms&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2132649%2Fofficial-brits-love-wind-farms%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DOfficial%253A%2BBrits%2Blove%2Bwind%2Bfarms" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121217357327/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1af0ec69/kg/301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121217357327/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1af0ec69/kg/301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:32:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2132649/official-brits-love-wind-farms?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Official%3A+Brits+love+wind+farms</guid></item><item><title>Durban Summit – success or failure?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ae24cb9/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21318740Cdurban0Esummit0Esuccess0Efailure0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FDurban0KSummit0K0JE20J80A0J930Ksuccess0Kor0Kfailure0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Durban climate change conference " src="/IMG/225/203225/cop-17-logo-185x114.jpg?1322222453" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; James Murray weighs up what the opposing reactions to the Durban Summit mean for green firms &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Was the Durban Summit a) the forum that delivered a plan to "save one planet for the future of our children and our grandchildren to come", as described by South African Foreign Minister and chairman of the summit, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, or b) an endurance test that resulted in what Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins described as an "empty shell of a plan that leaves the planet hurtling towards catastrophic climate change"? Answers on the back of a postcard to the UN climate change secretariat in Bonn please. The responses to the signing of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action have split along predictably binary lines. Politicians, diplomats and some business leaders have spun the deal as an historic breakthrough, while acknowledging that there is a long way to go to ensure emissions peak. Meanwhile, world-weary green NGOs have slammed the summit as a soul-destroying diplomatic Groundhog Day that has singularly failed to deliver the aggressive policy measures that are required, while also acknowledging that some modest progress was made. These responses are entirely understandable. It is the job of green groups to push governments for ever more ambition, just as it is the job of politicians to put a positive spin on their achievements (and be in no doubt: this agreement was a serious diplomatic achievement; there was a very real chance the talks would collapse). However, these diametrically opposed responses to the new deal are not of much use to the business community - a business community that all sides of the debate agree will play a crucial role in ensuring whether these international climate change talks ever deliver the low carbon global economy they promise. Ultimately, the only way to measure the success or failure of the annual jamboree that is the UN-backed COP summits is to get back to brass tacks and ask whether the meeting has helped or hindered the mobilisation of investment in low carbon and environmentally sustainable infrastructure and technology. It is tempting to measure the success of the successive Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban Agreements against the ambition displayed in their pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But this is overly simplistic. Any eventual international treaty that contains commitments, legally binding or otherwise, to deliver deep cuts in emissions will only represent a statement of intention. These treaties mirror nuclear disarmament agreements; they are a great starting point, but their success is entirely dependent on the willingness of signatories to actually begin to disarm. Similarly, an ambitious agreement to cut global emissions would be a great start, but the success would depend on individual countries' willingness to put their international obligations into action. No country is going to invade another for non-compliance with climate obligations (I hope) and, as such, binding emission reduction targets, while important, are not the magic bullet some ministers and campaigners seem to suggest. The real measure of success for international climate talks in general, and the Durban Summit in particular, is whether they drive the response to climate change in terms of increased investment in emission reduction and adaptation measures, and whether they address the 'carbon leakage' that could see carbon intensive businesses from low carbon economies relocate to those regions not taking action to curb emissions. The aim of the COP summits should not be to simply set emission reduction targets that the international community would then struggle to enforce, but to provide the policy direction and certainty necessary to drive global corporate investment in the technology and infrastructure necessary to cut emissions. Targets can have an important role to play in delivering this certainty (the US and others are wrong to suggest we don't need legally binding targets, they help give investors precisely the certainty they want), but ultimate success will only come when we have technologies and business models that can deliver steep emissions reductions at low cost. Once we get there, carbon targets and international treaties will look after themselves as the market drives the transition to a global low carbon economy. As soon as someone develops solar panels, wind turbines or nuclear power plants that can produce energy safely and at a lower cost than fossil fuels, the difficulty experienced over the past week in getting countries to sign up to ambitious emission reduction targets will quickly dissipate. Thankfully, the IEA and many other experts are predicting these new technologies will emerge between 2015 and 2020, just at the point negotiators have promised to deliver their new legal treaty. So has the Durban Summit succeeded against the dual criteria of helping to drive low carbon investment and creating a level global framework that addresses 'carbon leakage'? The answer, to a modest extent, is yes. It might have taken three nights of semantic gymnastics, but for the first time we have an agreement that will sees all countries, including the large emerging economies of China and India, facing legally backed climate change obligations. There are many more details to be finalised before we can hail the emergence of a genuinely global regime for curbing emissions, but carbon intensive companies considering relocating from regions with emissions reduction policies to developing countries such as India and China will now have to factor into their decision the likelihood that these economies will be required to deliver more ambitious legally backed green policies within the next decade. All the major economies have also reiterated their support for the latest climate science and their commitment to ramping up investment in low carbon infrastructure through all means necessary, providing yet another signal to investors that this economic transition is here to stay despite the headlines currently being grabbed by the economic crisis. In addition, largely under-reported progress on the formation of a Green Climate Fund, the expansion of the Clean Development Mechanism, the possibility of global aviation and shipping levies, and clarification on national emissions measurement, reporting and verification requirements should all help drive further private sector investment in low carbon technologies, goods and services. Over the past two weeks plenty of commentators have suggested that the UN negotiating process is no longer fit-for-purpose and now needs to be put out to pasture to be replaced by a stripped down attempt to agree climate financing, forest protection, and national level emission reduction and clean tech investment action plans. They may have a point - it is hard to disagree that the process is dysfunctional when globally significant decisions keep getting made by people suffering from the kind of sleep deprivation more commonly associated with Japanese game shows. But at the same time the negotiations seem to be slowly heading towards the kind of agreement many business commentators want to see, whereby all countries act in a degree of unison, policies drive investment in clean technology, climate adaptation and forest protection, and legal commitments provide investor certainty. Be in no doubt, the Durban Platform is an inadequate response to the scale of the climate change threat and time is fast running out to deliver the deep cuts in emissions we urgently require to avoid the worst effects associated with rising temperatures. The green NGOs are right when they bemoan the paucity of the ambition shown by the international community. But the Durban Summit has provided the clearest signal yet to green businesses and investors that the transition to a low carbon economy will not be derailed, and has also given them a deadline of four years to deliver the clean technologies that will make the completion of an ambitious legally binding climate change treaty so attractive that no one will lose sleep about signing up. These results mean that, on balance, the Durban Summit has proved one of the most successful climate change summits in years. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ae24cb9/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Durban+Summit+%E2%80%93+success+or+failure%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131874%2Fdurban-summit-success-failure%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%2BSummit%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2Bsuccess%2Bor%2Bfailure%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Durban+Summit+%E2%80%93+success+or+failure%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131874%2Fdurban-summit-success-failure%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%2BSummit%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2Bsuccess%2Bor%2Bfailure%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121217204045/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1ae24cb9/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/121217204045/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1ae24cb9/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:46:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2131874/durban-summit-success-failure?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Durban+Summit+%E2%80%93+success+or+failure%3F</guid></item><item><title>Durban: What is so special about 2015?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ac8ec7d/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21312910Cdurban0Especial0E20A150DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FDurban0J3A0KWhat0Kis0Kso0Kspecial0Kabout0K20A150J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Durban in South Africa at night" src="/IMG/241/203241/durban-at-night-185x114.jpg?1322226876" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The proposal to agree a climate deal by 2015 suggests politicians understand we're on the verge of a clean technology breakthrough &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; The Durban Summit enters its final day with the crucial debate centring on the EU's proposed roadmap for agreeing a new treaty by 2015 and enacting it by 2020. The COP rumour mill suggests a deal remains possible and an agreement may yet be reached that allows the Kyoto Protocol to continue in some form, while the large emitters sign on to a new round of negotiations designed to deliver an agreement by 2015. As such accusations and counter accusations are now centring on who is pushing for this new timeline to be adopted and potentially accelerated and who wants to see a deal delayed until after 2020. From a political perspective the current state of affairs has to be taken as encouraging, particularly given there was a real chance going into the summit that the talks would have already collapsed by this stage. It looks as if a deal can be done that will not only allow the negotiating process to continue past 2012, but may actually deliver tangible results in terms of a new global green fund, progress on aviation and shipping emissions levies, and the continued expansion of the global carbon market. As of late yesterday evening a growing coalition of countries appeared to be willing (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) to sign on to the EU's plan, including the groups of African nations, least developed countries, and island states, and Brazil, Canada, and most significantly the US. Unfortunately, from an environmental perspective the new roadmap could prove pretty disastrous. In short, diplomats are working on a treaty to ensure that emissions peak years after scientists are recommending that they peak. Meanwhile, the fixation on agreeing a roadmap for a timeline to agree a framework that may eventually become a protocol, means the crucial issue of how countries share emissions reductions is again being filed in the tray marked "too difficult". The pros and cons of this new roadmap have been widely discussed, but what has attracted less comment is the crucial question of why 2015 and 2020 have been elected the arbitrary dates for the agreement and then finalisation of a new treaty. What will have changed in four and nine years' time that will suddenly make a robust international treaty viable? If you can't agree a treaty after a decade of negotiations what makes you think an extra few years will make a difference? Equally, if you really are that close to finalising the treaty everyone says they want why do you need four more years, why can't you lock yourselves in a room until this is done and announce a global deal in January? With the future of the global economy at stake the Turkey and crackers can surely wait. There are two possible explanations for the 2015 and 2020 deadlines, one depressing, one encouraging. The first is that this is yet another delaying tactic from countries that have no real intention of ever agreeing an ambitious global treaty. The goal is simply to turn the climate change negotiations into the ugly sister of the never ending Doha Trade Talks, where well-meaning rhetoric is followed time and time again by a willingness to kick difficult decisions into the long grass. Under this explanation, China, India and the other emerging economies will never accept international measures to curb their emissions and the US and its dysfunctional political system will remain in hoc to oil companies and climate sceptic billionaires. Meanwhile, the EU will gullibly lap up the rhetoric in support of a deal from the other large emitters, while singularly failing to convince anyone to make binding commitments. The key dates of 2015 and 2020 are thrown into the mix because they are close enough to kid people that action is being taken, while far enough away to allow countries to continue along their carbon intensive paths unimpeded. However, there is a more optimistic explanation for the delay until 2015 that can be found in the laboratories, factories, and offices of the world's fast expanding green businesses. The second half of this decade is slated as the period when two major technological and economic phenomena will converge. Firstly, the emerging generation of mainstream clean technologies will begin to roll out at scale from 2015 onwards. We will see the UK's giant offshore wind farms start generating power, the huge solar farms of China, the US, Spain, and North Africa come online, biofuel powered flights become an increasingly common occurrence, and electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles sell in their millions. Secondly, the billions of dollars invested in the second generation of clean technologies will begin to come to fruition with analysts predicting that the second half of the decade will see the emergence of solar cells and wind turbines that can produce energy at the same cost as fossil fuels, smart grids that maximise the efficiency of every drop of energy we produce, and batteries that make electric cars viable and renewable energy reliable. Who are these radical, evangelical green analysts? Those famous tree-hugging hippies at Bloomberg and the International Energy Agency, and their eco-fundamentalist pals at companies like GE, Siemens, and IBM. It is these converging trends that explain why the proposed delay until 2015, while hugely frustrating, might just give politicians the room they need to deliver a proper binding and ambitious treaty. They will finally have the evidence they need to sell a deal to still sceptical populations who fear cutting emissions will stall development and progress. There is also an intriguing conspiracy theory to support this hypothesis. Talk to close observers of the long-running talks and there is a fair chance they will tell you that the real reason China repeatedly blocks an agreement is that it is stalling in order to give its fast expanding wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers time to gain complete global dominance. Once that is secured, probably sometime around 2015, they will sign up to an international treaty and sell the world the low cost energy technologies it needs to replace fossil fuels, cementing its century long global dominance once and for all. As conspiracy theories go it is pretty convincing and it again underlines the way the US is being completely outmanoeuvred by the new emerging superpower. It also provides a slither of hope that delaying a new international climate agreement until 2015 might not be so bad after all, as long as economies and businesses use the crucial next four years to prepare for a breakneck transition to a true low carbon economy. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ac8ec7d/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Durban%3A+What+is+so+special+about+2015%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131291%2Fdurban-special-2015%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%253A%2BWhat%2Bis%2Bso%2Bspecial%2Babout%2B2015%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Durban%3A+What+is+so+special+about+2015%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131291%2Fdurban-special-2015%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%253A%2BWhat%2Bis%2Bso%2Bspecial%2Babout%2B2015%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120219427646/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1ac8ec7d/kg/275-295-301/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120219427646/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1ac8ec7d/kg/275-295-301/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2131291/durban-special-2015?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Durban%3A+What+is+so+special+about+2015%3F</guid></item><item><title>Durban: Can a global climate deal work if it is not global?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ac3c50d/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21310A370Cdurban0Eglobal0Eclimate0Edeal0Eglobal0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FDurban0J3A0KCan0Ka0Kglobal0Kclimate0Kdeal0Kwork0Kif0Kit0Kis0Knot0Kglobal0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Durban climate change conference " src="/IMG/225/203225/cop-17-logo-185x114.jpg?1322222453" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The deadlock in Durban raises the prospect of a two tier response to climate change &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; It is, as the old joke goes, déjà vu all over again. Hopes remain that a dramatic eleventh hour breakthrough can be engineered, but thus far the Durban Summit appears to be following the same pattern as previous UN climate change conferences. Namely, several days of diplomatic brinkmanship, followed by frantic attempts to cobble together some sort of deal and spin incremental progress as a major breakthrough. Optimists can point to the fact that we are now closer to a deal than ever before with all countries broadly agreed on the urgent need to cut emissions, genuine progress being made on issues such as climate aid, carbon trading reforms, and emissions reporting and verification, and discussions continuing on a potentially workable EU roadmap that could end the stand off over the future of the Kyoto Protocol by tying its extension to the signing of a parallel treaty. However, these silver linings are all but obscured by some staggeringly gloomy clouds. Firstly, the progress being made on technical issues such as forestry protection and inclusion of carbon capture and storage in the carbon offset market is pretty marginal, and even if agreements are reached before the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol finishes at their end of next year their future rests on the resolution of the Gordian Knot that continues to define the overarching treaty negotiations. Secondly, the crucial issue of climate aid and the promised $100bn green fund remains highly contentious, and even if ministers can reach an agreement it remains to be seen whether they can take the deal home and sell it to electorates who are currently not in a particularly munificent frame of mind. The US stalling of an agreement on how to raise the $100bn a year necessary is pretty unedifying, but can you imagine the Obama administration getting such a proposal past Congress or running an election campaign where opponents accuse him of giving US money to countries battling to cope with climate change threats they don't think exist? Thirdly, and most importantly, the EU's roadmap towards a new global treaty that would be agreed by 2015 and enacted by 2020 might look workable on paper, but it is apparently not playing that well in the crucial meetings between the world's largest economies. The poorest nations may now be willing to snatch at any deal they can get, but India and China are continuing to insist Kyoto must be extended before talks on a parallel treaty for those countries without Kyoto obligations can begin, Canada, Japan and Russia are still ruling out any extension of the Kyoto Protocol, and the US is not helping matters by suggesting it is not particularly interested in any sort of binding treaty. This Reservoir Dogs style three-way stand off on the future road map needs resolving before you can get onto the even more complex and challenging issue of what a new parallel treaty would look like and what targets industrialised countries would agree to under a second Kyoto commitment period. Given the US pledge to cut emissions 17 per cent against 2005 levels by 2020 is an absolute abnegation of its historical responsibilities and Chinese and Indian commitments to cut their carbon intensity would in fact result in a continued increase in overall emissions it almost unimaginable nations will agree to the scale of binding emission reduction targets scientists insist are needed. As green NGOs have noted, optimism is being pinned on a hypothetical treaty that would come into effect after we have passed the point at which scientists fear it will become impossible to hold average temperature increases below two degrees Centigrade. We are heading towards legally binding targets to deliver a world that is four to six degrees hotter. All of which must leave those businesses calling for a comprehensive and ambitious global treaty wringing their hands with frustration, if not despair. However, given despair is a psychologically difficult position to maintain indefinitely it seems inevitable the Durban Summit could finally force political and business leaders to look to the plan B that should have been pursued long ago. Because while the Durban Summit might look like a retread of previous summit's the looming and immovable deadline of 2012 means resolution of one kind or another is on the horizon. The clock is ticking and at a technical level ministers are going to have to work out pretty soon how they plan to maintain initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism, the REDD forest credit scheme, and national emissions reporting requirements when the first Kyoto commitment period lapses. More significantly, they are going to have to work out what happens if no one blinks and the current stand-off continues into next year. Will the EU sign up to an extension of Kyoto if just one or two large polluters refuse to agree to similarly binding emissions reductions goals? What happens to the voluntary commitments through to 2020 if no one signs up to an extension of Kyoto and countries start to walk away from the talks in anger and disgust? What pressure can be brought to bear on recalcitrant countries to reignite the negotiations and ensure a treaty is agreed by 2015? Most interestingly, what happens if a critical mass of countries agree a deal, but a few powerful countries (the US, India, Saudi Arabia?) refuse to sign up? Can you have a global climate deal that is not global? The reason governments, NGOs, and businesses have always favoured a genuinely global deal is that without one there is a huge risk that carbon intensive industries just locate to those countries without climate change obligations. You could argue this is precisely what has happened with the Kyoto Protocol with the EU meeting its emissions reductions targets in large part because heavy industry has relocated to China. However, while Kyoto has undoubtedly failed as a means of reducing global emissions it has succeeded in some respects. It did provide the trigger the EU needed to mobilise huge investment in low carbon technology and decouple GDP growth and domestic emissions. Yes, it effectively exported a huge chunk of its emissions to China, but China is now seeking to use many of the low carbon technologies and models established in Europe to curb its own emissions. If the US, India and others refuse to sign on to any form of global treaty, if President Gingrich pulls the US from the entire UN process in 2013, can a multilateral deal between the low carbon pioneers still work? Is it possible to envisage the EU and the world's poorest countries extending Kyoto, while China, Brazil, South Africa and maybe Japan sign on to an alternative parallel treaty? Countries would only agree to such a two track approach if tariffs and other protectionist measures were deployed to address carbon leakage fears and block unfair competition from the carbon intensive countries operating outside any agreement. But if Europe, China and others are as serious as they say they are about building low carbon economies and tackling climate change then there is a chance they will decide they are better off working together under a binding or semi-binding multilateral treaty or a series of interlocking bilateral treaties, rather than going it alone with national plans. The implications for the business community in general and the green business community in particular would be immense. Alternatively, everyone could walk away, drawing a line under a negotiating process that is no longer fit for purpose and clearing the way for a new approach (neatly summarised last week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance's Michael Liebreich) based on action plans from the 20 largest polluters to further accelerate rapidly increasing clean tech investment levels, an international commitment to help poor countries adapt to inevitable climate change, and mechanisms to halt deforestation. Businesses need to be aware of, but not obsessed by, the urgent debates underway in Durban and the myriad possibilities they present, not least because some sort of significant semi-global deal remains possible. But at the risk of more déjà vu it is also important to trot out an argument we've outlined many times in the past. Ultimately, technical policy details don't matter all that much. Climate change risks, energy insecurity, resource scarcity, population pressures, and the immense opportunities presented clean technologies means green business makes complete sense, regardless of whether or not our politicians and diplomats ever learn from their mistakes. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ac3c50d/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Durban%3A+Can+a+global+climate+deal+work+if+it+is+not+global%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131037%2Fdurban-global-climate-deal-global%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%253A%2BCan%2Ba%2Bglobal%2Bclimate%2Bdeal%2Bwork%2Bif%2Bit%2Bis%2Bnot%2Bglobal%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Durban%3A+Can+a+global+climate+deal+work+if+it+is+not+global%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131037%2Fdurban-global-climate-deal-global%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%253A%2BCan%2Ba%2Bglobal%2Bclimate%2Bdeal%2Bwork%2Bif%2Bit%2Bis%2Bnot%2Bglobal%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120219364858/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1ac3c50d/kg/295/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120219364858/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1ac3c50d/kg/295/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:43:31 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2131037/durban-global-climate-deal-global?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Durban%3A+Can+a+global+climate+deal+work+if+it+is+not+global%3F</guid></item><item><title>Durban: Can a climate deal work if it is not global?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ac58a99/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21310A370Cdurban0Eglobal0Eclimate0Edeal0Eglobal0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FDurban0J3A0KCan0Ka0Kclimate0Kdeal0Kwork0Kif0Kit0Kis0Knot0Kglobal0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Durban climate change conference " src="/IMG/225/203225/cop-17-logo-185x114.jpg?1322222453" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The deadlock in Durban raises the prospect of a two tier response to climate change &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; It is, as the old joke goes, déjà vu all over again. Hopes remain that a dramatic eleventh hour breakthrough can be engineered, but thus far the Durban Summit appears to be following the same pattern as previous UN climate change conferences. Namely, several days of diplomatic brinkmanship, followed by frantic attempts to cobble together some sort of deal and spin incremental progress as a major breakthrough. Optimists can point to the fact that we are now closer to a deal than ever before with all countries broadly agreed on the urgent need to cut emissions, genuine progress being made on issues such as climate aid, carbon trading reforms, and emissions reporting and verification, and discussions continuing on a potentially workable EU roadmap that could end the stand off over the future of the Kyoto Protocol by tying its extension to the signing of a parallel treaty. However, these silver linings are all but obscured by some staggeringly gloomy clouds. Firstly, the progress being made on technical issues such as forestry protection and inclusion of carbon capture and storage in the carbon offset market is pretty marginal, and even if agreements are reached before the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol finishes at their end of next year their future rests on the resolution of the Gordian Knot that continues to define the overarching treaty negotiations. Secondly, the crucial issue of climate aid and the promised $100bn green fund remains highly contentious, and even if ministers can reach an agreement it remains to be seen whether they can take the deal home and sell it to electorates who are currently not in a particularly munificent frame of mind. The US stalling of an agreement on how to raise the $100bn a year necessary is pretty unedifying, but can you imagine the Obama administration getting such a proposal past Congress or running an election campaign where opponents accuse him of giving US money to countries battling to cope with climate change threats they don't think exist? Thirdly, and most importantly, the EU's roadmap towards a new global treaty that would be agreed by 2015 and enacted by 2020 might look workable on paper, but it is apparently not playing that well in the crucial meetings between the world's largest economies. The poorest nations may now be willing to snatch at any deal they can get, but India and China are continuing to insist Kyoto must be extended before talks on a parallel treaty for those countries without Kyoto obligations can begin, Canada, Japan and Russia are still ruling out any extension of the Kyoto Protocol, and the US is not helping matters by suggesting it is not particularly interested in any sort of binding treaty. This Reservoir Dogs style three-way stand off on the future road map needs resolving before you can get onto the even more complex and challenging issue of what a new parallel treaty would look like and what targets industrialised countries would agree to under a second Kyoto commitment period. Given the US pledge to cut emissions 17 per cent against 2005 levels by 2020 is an absolute abnegation of its historical responsibilities and Chinese and Indian commitments to cut their carbon intensity would in fact result in a continued increase in overall emissions it almost unimaginable nations will agree to the scale of binding emission reduction targets scientists insist are needed. As green NGOs have noted, optimism is being pinned on a hypothetical treaty that would come into effect after we have passed the point at which scientists fear it will become impossible to hold average temperature increases below two degrees Centigrade. We are heading towards legally binding targets to deliver a world that is four to six degrees hotter. All of which must leave those businesses calling for a comprehensive and ambitious global treaty wringing their hands with frustration, if not despair. However, given despair is a psychologically difficult position to maintain indefinitely it seems inevitable the Durban Summit could finally force political and business leaders to look to the plan B that should have been pursued long ago. Because while the Durban Summit might look like a retread of previous summit's the looming and immovable deadline of 2012 means resolution of one kind or another is on the horizon. The clock is ticking and at a technical level ministers are going to have to work out pretty soon how they plan to maintain initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism, the REDD forest credit scheme, and national emissions reporting requirements when the first Kyoto commitment period lapses. More significantly, they are going to have to work out what happens if no one blinks and the current stand-off continues into next year. Will the EU sign up to an extension of Kyoto if just one or two large polluters refuse to agree to similarly binding emissions reductions goals? What happens to the voluntary commitments through to 2020 if no one signs up to an extension of Kyoto and countries start to walk away from the talks in anger and disgust? What pressure can be brought to bear on recalcitrant countries to reignite the negotiations and ensure a treaty is agreed by 2015? Most interestingly, what happens if a critical mass of countries agree a deal, but a few powerful countries (the US, India, Saudi Arabia?) refuse to sign up? Can you have a global climate deal that is not global? The reason governments, NGOs, and businesses have always favoured a genuinely global deal is that without one there is a huge risk that carbon intensive industries just locate to those countries without climate change obligations. You could argue this is precisely what has happened with the Kyoto Protocol with the EU meeting its emissions reductions targets in large part because heavy industry has relocated to China. However, while Kyoto has undoubtedly failed as a means of reducing global emissions it has succeeded in some respects. It did provide the trigger the EU needed to mobilise huge investment in low carbon technology and decouple GDP growth and domestic emissions. Yes, it effectively exported a huge chunk of its emissions to China, but China is now seeking to use many of the low carbon technologies and models established in Europe to curb its own emissions. If the US, India and others refuse to sign on to any form of global treaty, if President Gingrich pulls the US from the entire UN process in 2013, can a multilateral deal between the low carbon pioneers still work? Is it possible to envisage the EU and the world's poorest countries extending Kyoto, while China, Brazil, South Africa and maybe Japan sign on to an alternative parallel treaty? Countries would only agree to such a two track approach if tariffs and other protectionist measures were deployed to address carbon leakage fears and block unfair competition from the carbon intensive countries operating outside any agreement. But if Europe, China and others are as serious as they say they are about building low carbon economies and tackling climate change then there is a chance they will decide they are better off working together under a binding or semi-binding multilateral treaty or a series of interlocking bilateral treaties, rather than going it alone with national plans. The implications for the business community in general and the green business community in particular would be immense. Alternatively, everyone could walk away, drawing a line under a negotiating process that is no longer fit for purpose and clearing the way for a new approach (neatly summarised last week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance's Michael Liebreich) based on action plans from the 20 largest polluters to further accelerate rapidly increasing clean tech investment levels, an international commitment to help poor countries adapt to inevitable climate change, and mechanisms to halt deforestation. Businesses need to be aware of, but not obsessed by, the urgent debates underway in Durban and the myriad possibilities they present, not least because some sort of significant semi-global deal remains possible. But at the risk of more déjà vu it is also important to trot out an argument we've outlined many times in the past. Ultimately, technical policy details don't matter all that much. Climate change risks, energy insecurity, resource scarcity, population pressures, and the immense opportunities presented clean technologies means green business makes complete sense, regardless of whether or not our politicians and diplomats ever learn from their mistakes. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1ac58a99/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Durban%3A+Can+a+climate+deal+work+if+it+is+not+global%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131037%2Fdurban-global-climate-deal-global%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%253A%2BCan%2Ba%2Bclimate%2Bdeal%2Bwork%2Bif%2Bit%2Bis%2Bnot%2Bglobal%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Durban%3A+Can+a+climate+deal+work+if+it+is+not+global%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2131037%2Fdurban-global-climate-deal-global%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDurban%253A%2BCan%2Ba%2Bclimate%2Bdeal%2Bwork%2Bif%2Bit%2Bis%2Bnot%2Bglobal%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:43:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2131037/durban-global-climate-deal-global?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Durban%3A+Can+a+climate+deal+work+if+it+is+not+global%3F</guid></item><item><title>Is the marketing department blocking your green ambitions?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1abdcff3/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C2130A90A50Cmarketing0Edepartment0Eblocking0Egreen0Eambitions0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FIs0Kthe0Kmarketing0Kdepartment0Kblocking0Kyour0Kgreen0Kambitions0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="solar-panel1" src="/IMG/812/199812/solar-panel1-185x114.png?1319704943" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; James Murray wonders whether marketeers are guilty of ignoring green opportunities &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Back in 2000, an album by electronica musician and producer Moby secured the dubious distinction of becoming the first to see every single track licensed for use in adverts, TV shows or movies. There was a flurry of commentary at the time around the phenomenon, with critics divided as to whether the unprecedented licensing of Play represented the future or the death of modern music. There were also numerous attempts to explain why the album had proved so popular with advertising and marketing execs, some of whom touched on its modern reworking of timeless samples, others arguing that it spoke to an era of chilled out consumerism, but most hinting at the fact that the album was simply a good soundtrack for communications gurus to put on when they were coming down after a night out partying. Either way, Moby inadvertently highlighted the way in which advertising and communications professionals can become prone to group-think, and how the perceptions of a relatively small number of people can have a huge social and economic impact. It certainly had a huge impact for Moby: the album sold over 10 million copies, more than any other album of its genre, and turned the unlikely figure of a former techno nerd into a global star. For businesses the problem comes when this marketing group-think is deployed not to advance a product or cause, but to block it. Unfortunately, that is precisely what is happening to many admirable green business initiatives. I was speaking the other week to one of the UK's leading green business consultants and he was firmly of the opinion that the marketing department is the last unreconstructed corporate opponent of sustainability. The chief executive increasingly 'gets it', as they understand the threat posed by climate risks and the opportunity presented by the growing low carbon economy. The finance and operations departments tend to 'get it', as green initiatives often deliver significant long-term efficiencies and financial savings. The sales and innovation hubs within a business 'get it', as they understand that green products are usually better designed and can create a great sales story. But, with a few notable exceptions, marketing departments are often sceptical about the value of green claims and in some cases downright hostile to sustainability initiatives. I was reminded of this conversation yesterday at the launch of Sky's Sustainable Generation report, where senior executives bemoaned the way in which businesses are strangely reluctant to talk about the 'good things that we do' and promote the sustainability values that increasingly define them. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions that prove the rule. Sky, for one, is investing heavily in promoting its increasingly impressive green credentials, while companies such as M&amp;S, Unilever, B&amp;Q, Toyota and General Electric have all emerged in recent years as highly visible and vocal advocates of a new kind of green business. Moreover, there are countless successful startups that make green commitments a central component of marketing and branding. But the reason these examples are so well worn is that they are few and far between. I'd argue that the hypothesis stands up. There are large numbers of firms out there that are making good progress at cutting carbon emissions and are genuinely committed to developing more sustainable business models, but are reluctant to make much of a noise about it beyond the occasional press release. There is an apparent unwillingness to put the same degree of marketing and advertising muscle behind green products and issues as is thrown behind other aspects of a company's brand. The reason for this must lie in the marketing department. The key question is why so few businesses are willing to talk about their environmental records. If we are being slightly mean-spirited we could argue that the inhabitants of advertising, marketing and PR departments are not a natural green constituency. It is a hugely unfair clichéd generalisation, but are executives who are trained to enjoy and understand the latest fashion, music and trends likely to spend time grappling with the daunting scientific and economic issues that characterise sustainability? They do not care that much about green issues, and they think their customers don't either. Leaving departmental stereotypes aside, where marketing and advertising teams have engaged with green issues they have often been scared off by the spectre of 'greenwash'. There is understandable concern that, regardless of whether or not a company has an effective green strategy, there are reputation risks attached to making environmental performance a key component of a marketing campaign. No one wants to be labelled a hypocrite and, unless a company has genuinely robust green credentials and products, they are risking that charge. However, there are signs that 'greenwash' is on the wane. This might be tempting fate but, while some firms continue to make dubious claims, there has not been a big 'greenwash' scandal in quite a while. Businesses that do choose to market green products and services increasingly understand the communications guidelines they have to stick to in order to avoid charges of 'greenwash', while the environmental NGOs that used to attack companies for making exaggerated green claims are increasingly willing to work with firms to improve performance and promote genuine green strategies. The final and most significant reason behind the marketing department's hostility to green messaging comes in the form of evidence that their assumptions might be right: some customers just aren't interested in environmental issues. Ever since the economic crisis struck there has been an assumption by many commentators that the environment is no longer a major worry for consumers who are now much more concerned with short-term issues. This school of thought appeared to be borne out today with the release of the latest British Social Attitudes study showing that interest in environmental issues has fallen. The survey found that the proportion of people thinking scientists are overstating climate change threats rose from 24 per cent in 2000 to 37 per cent a decade later, while the proportion stating that they would pay 'much higher prices' for 'the sake of the environment' fell from 43 per cent to 26 per cent. Are the sceptical marketeers right? Are environmental issues a turn off for customers? Well, of course they are in certain circumstances. But any communications professional assuming that green marketing is a non-starter, that people just aren't interested in environmental issues, is guilty of a gross simplification. Firstly, the Social Attitudes survey reveals a none too surprising recession (and Daily Mail) induced drop in the level of environmental concern. But spin the emphasis on the statistics around and the picture is not actually that bleak. Two thirds of people still accept climate change warnings at face value, significantly more people are recycling, and remarkably over a quarter of people are willing to pay 'much higher prices' on environmental grounds. Personally, I'm pretty reluctant to pay 'much higher prices' for anything right now, which suggests that there is still a fairly robust group of green consumers out there. This fact is reinforced by the 4.3 per cent expansion of the market for green goods and services last year and plenty of other surveys that have asked slightly different questions and revealed that public interest in green goods and services remains surprisingly solid. For example, a recent survey of consumer habits from the Carbon Trust found that the proportion of shoppers willing to shun products without carbon labels has doubled from 22 per cent to 45 per cent in the past year. Countless other green firms have undertaken workshops and market research which has proved that the right sort of environmental messaging can resonate. In addition to there being a sizable green consumer market for marketing departments to target, companies that claim to be serious about building a more sustainable economy have an educational role to play. Those firms now investing billions in developing low carbon technologies and infrastructure have to overturn any resistance in the marketing department and mobilise campaigns that educate and prepare the market for this new generation of products. Without this marketing groundwork, efforts to push green goods such as fuel efficient cars or Green Deal efficiency makeovers will fall flat. Finally, even if consumers are less overtly interested in green products, they are interested in better products. A lot has been written about the flight to quality experienced during recessions, just as analysts have also identified the austerity appeal of products that save you money. Whether it is insulation, solar panels or fuel efficient cars, green goods and services play into these demands, and savvy marketing departments should not be dismissing green messaging as irrelevant but should be working hard to find new and compelling ways to promote products that customers want and need. Thankfully, marketing group-think can be broken eventually. Just look at the rather less impressive sales of Moby's follow up albums. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1abdcff3/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Is+the+marketing+department+blocking+your+green+ambitions%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2130905%2Fmarketing-department-blocking-green-ambitions%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DIs%2Bthe%2Bmarketing%2Bdepartment%2Bblocking%2Byour%2Bgreen%2Bambitions%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Is+the+marketing+department+blocking+your+green+ambitions%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2130905%2Fmarketing-department-blocking-green-ambitions%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DIs%2Bthe%2Bmarketing%2Bdepartment%2Bblocking%2Byour%2Bgreen%2Bambitions%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120219003320/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1abdcff3/kg/273-294-295/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120219003320/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1abdcff3/kg/273-294-295/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:36:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2130905/marketing-department-blocking-green-ambitions?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Is+the+marketing+department+blocking+your+green+ambitions%3F</guid></item><item><title>Don’t let the green gloom get you down</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a8ae90f/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21290A590Cdon0Et0Egreen0Egloom0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FDon0JE20J80A0J99t0Klet0Kthe0Kgreen0Kgloom0Kget0Kyou0Kdown/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="george-osborne-" src="/IMG/172/167172/george-osborne--185x114.jpg?1300897674" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The Chancellor's anti-green rhetoric will have grated, but there are still reasons for low carbon firms to be cheerful &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; It is the job of business to be ever optimistic. Nothing defines the successful entrepreneur like their optimism, their unshaking belief that their business will go from strength to strength, that each backward step is simply a curtain raiser for a giant leap forward. Many of the world's most successful firms (and a fair few failures) have been fuelled by the optimistic mantra, "build it and they will come". The business community serves a valuable economic and social role through its belief in a better tomorrow, its unwavering pursuit of the technologies and innovations that will drive continued success. As the banking crisis that triggered the economic crisis proved, overconfidence is a curse, but as the growth crisis now proves an economy cannot operate without corporate optimism. Which begs the question, how do businesses maintain this crucial optimism when the economic outlook is so bleak and, more specifically, how can green businesses remain optimistic when the chancellor is so publicly dismissive of the low-carbon economy? It is hard to overstate the damage to confidence done by George Osborne's all-out assault on the low-carbon economy in yesterday's annual statement (and do not believe his green defenders, an all-out assault is precisely what it was). The government will try to dismiss the criticism as the usual bleatings from impossible to satisfy green NGOs and Guardianistas, but there are plenty of corporate executives and business lobbyists who are privately furious over what one tactfully described as the "very frustrating way Osborne articulates his position on green issues". There is genuine anger across the low-carbon economy – a sector that employs 910,000 people – about the way the words Osborne uses are making it harder for them to attract investors and drive growth. The chancellor could have adopted a carefully nuanced explanation for his decision to provide increased support for energy-intensive firms, detailing how the support will only be available to those businesses most at risk of "carbon leakage" and those that commit to improving their energy efficiency. He could have explained that while reforms to planning and conservation rules were essential to drive economic growth, he remains fully aware of the concerns of the National Trust and is doing all he can to ameliorate them. He could have linked the impact on the UK's economy of rising global fossil fuel policies with his commitment to provide £200m to help people improve the efficiency of their homes, dish out £100m to enhance the energy efficiency of heavy industry, and launch five new offshore wind centres – all of which was in the published autumn statement. This would require no changes in policy, just a change in emphasis – the adoption of a conciliatory tone. Instead, Osborne chose to belittle and undermine environmental concerns. He chose to barely mention the green policies the government is pursuing and dismiss his cabinet colleagues' efforts to create a low-carbon economy with the killer sentence: "If we burden [business] with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer." And if that were not enough, he then argued that "gold-plating of EU rules on things like habitats" were placing "ridiculous costs on British businesses" (the hunt is now on for a single UK firm that is being bankrupted by EU habitat rules). This unhelpful rhetoric could yet represent a grave political and economic miscalculation for the chancellor. Politically, he has put himself on a collision course with not only those green NGOs that the government is happy to dismiss as raving lefties, but also the well-known revolutionaries at the National Trust, the RSPB, and the Campaign for Rural England. When a policy angers Friends of the Earth and the Telegraph, as the government's planning reforms have done, you know you are in a bit of trouble. I doubt some of his backbenchers from marginal rural seats will thank the chancellor in the long run. He has also made it easier for the Lib Dems to take almost complete ownership of the government's green agenda, allowing them to fight the next election as the progressive force at the heart of government, defying the nasty Tories to create new green jobs and introduce popular measures such as the Green Deal and Renewable Heat Incentive. And he has publicly defied his prime minister. Until Cameron gives a meaningful speech on the environment (and he should, soon) we have to assume he continues to regard climate change as an existential threat and the low-carbon economy as a necessity not a luxury. Unless the prime minister is preparing for a credibility shredding u-turn on green issues, he is going to have to at some point publicly contradict his chancellor and stress that green policies are an opportunity, not a burden. More significant still, the chancellor's failure to deliver a more nuanced argument risks damaging investor confidence and taking the wind from the sails of one of the economy's few growth areas. The only way for green businesses to resist the gloomy pessimism implicit in Osborne's speech is to ignore his words and try to focus on the more optimistic picture painted by some of his government's actions. This is not to suggest the government's approach is perfect. As we've documented, the handling of the cuts to solar feed-in tariffs has been little short of a shambles, the car-centric transport policy is a mess, and the government is still too timid when it comes to driving low-carbon investment. But when climate minister Greg Barker says the government is "underpromising and overdelivering" on green issues, he has a point. They are not getting much publicity at the moment, but measures such as the Green Investment Bank, the Green Deal, the Renewable Heat Incentive, and the plans for new offshore wind farms, CCS plants, and high-speed rail are genuinely world-leading policies that will drive huge investment in low-carbon technology and green businesses. They may have been in the pipeline when the Labour government left office, but it is the coalition that is turning them into a reality following 13 years of drift on energy policy. These policies could and should all be more ambitious, but there are enough positive measures in the mix to refuel the corporate optimism that should be inherent to any business committed to prospering in a green and sustainable economy. There are still a few reasons to be cheerful – it is just a shame the chancellor chooses to make them so hard to find. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a8ae90f/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Don%E2%80%99t+let+the+green+gloom+get+you+down&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2129059%2Fdon-t-green-gloom%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDon%25E2%2580%2599t%2Blet%2Bthe%2Bgreen%2Bgloom%2Bget%2Byou%2Bdown" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Don%E2%80%99t+let+the+green+gloom+get+you+down&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2129059%2Fdon-t-green-gloom%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DDon%25E2%2580%2599t%2Blet%2Bthe%2Bgreen%2Bgloom%2Bget%2Byou%2Bdown" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120218671619/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a8ae90f/kg/295/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120218671619/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a8ae90f/kg/295/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:21:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2129059/don-t-green-gloom?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Don%E2%80%99t+let+the+green+gloom+get+you+down</guid></item><item><title>Plan A isn't working - It's time for Plan G for green growth</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a7b5c05/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21281940Cplan0Eisnt0Eplan0Egreen0Egrowth0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FPlan0KA0Kisn0J27t0Kworking0K0E0KIt0J27s0Ktime0Kfor0KPlan0KG0Kfor0Kgreen0Kgrowth/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne presents the budget" src="/IMG/655/115655/osborne-budget-185x114.jpg?1287502112" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Green growth remains within the Chancellor's grasp, but he remains addicted to high carbon policies &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; Dear George, Today is going to be an understandably difficult day for you and your government. You are going to have to admit that unemployment is running at record levels with a catastrophically dispropportionate impact on the young, and acknowledge the economy is in serious danger of slipping back into recession. We can debate later whether our current economic maladies are the result of the actions of your government, the appalling inheritance you were bequeathed by the opposition, the international crises buffeting the UK, or a combination of all three. But regardless of where the fault lies it is clear that Plan A is, depending on your point of view, either faltering or failing. Moreover, the fact that you did not win the last election outright, coupled with your desire to ensure that your party does not appear detached and uncaring, means that you cannot repeat the stance of your forebears and insist unemployment and economic stagnation are a price worth paying for low rates of interest on government borrowing and the focus on deficit reduction. You need a new plan for growth but, for obvious political and arguable economic reasons, you cannot switch to the Plan B put forward by the opposition and step up borrowing to fund a government-led stimulus package. Labour's role in creating the current economic crisis and its failure to set out a genuinely coherent recovery package means that the public remains largely with you on this issue, but their understanding cannot be expected to last indefinitely if growth does not return in the short to medium term. So where will this growth come from, and how can you help stimulate it without forking out for a stimulus package in the conventional sense? Judging by the pre-briefings your department has offered, the depressing answer seems to be from a series of resolutely high carbon measures. All the indications suggest you will delay the planned 3p increase in fuel duty, step up investment in high carbon infrastructure such as road building (using, in part, funds that had been earmarked for the carbon capture and storage industry), and dish out tax breaks to carbon intensive firms. These measures may have the desired effect of stimulating job creation and helping out the 'squeezed middle', but it will do so at the cost of higher emissions and ensure economic stimulus is restricted to those regions deemed worthy of infrastructure investment. There is an alternative. An alternative presented by a sector which, according to your own figures, grew at over four per cent last year, is driving similar increases in exports, and already employs close to a million people: the green economy. There is plenty you could do in today's address that would drive growth in this sector without damaging the wider economy, while also cutting emissions and saving jobs - and all at little or no cost to the Exchequer. Here are just a few ideas: Rhetoric Firstly, and least importantly, you can help drive green growth by simple virtue of the language you use. The spending review is the first opportunity to put right the huge damage you did to low carbon investor confidence through your conference speech and its hint that the UK would no longer seek to lead the global effort to cut emissions. We all know you want to convince the right of your party that you are the best man to succeed David Cameron when the time comes, but if you are one day to end up as prime minister you will have to wrestle with the threat posed by climate change, and as such it is best to distance yourself from your climate sceptic, carbon reckless colleagues sooner rather than later. A simple assertion that you are fully committed to tackling climate change and honouring the UK's binding carbon budgets would make a huge difference. Fuel duty and green taxes Secondly, if you are committed to tackling climate change you need to stop bottling the tough decisions on fuel duty. It's already been made clear that the 3p hike in fuel duty due for 1 January will be deferred until the economy is in a better shape, and it seems inevitable that such a move will be popular. But it also runs counter to efforts to curb transport emissions and your stated goal to increase the proportion of green taxes. If motorists cannot bear a 3p hike, how about a compromise? You could raise fuel duty by 1p or 2p a litre and commit to using the additional funds raised to finance a repeat of the car scrappage scheme, only this time with grants on new cars limited to those with below average emissions. Such a move would add to the cost of motoring, so why not make good on the coalition agreement's green tax pledge by giving the 50 per cent of drivers using cars with below average emissions a kick back in the form of lower vehicle excise duty, paid for by a further increase in the tax on fuel guzzling vehicles? Green taxes and VAT While we're on the topic of green taxes, it is time to revive an idea pursued a few years back by one of your much criticised predecessors at Number 11. Gordon Brown mooted the idea of lower rates of VAT for green products, but then swiftly ditched the idea when it became plain it would fall foul of EU tax rules. You might have to hold your nose before resuscitating a concept previously pursued by the former prime minister, but a good old row with the EU would play well with your party, and the eurozone crisis gives the UK the perfect opportunity to win back this important power from Brussels. Most importantly, cutting VAT on selected green products would provide one of the simplest means available of stimulating demand, potentially to a level where any revenue lost through the introduction of a lower rate is clawed back through higher sales. In addition, if you are committed to raising green taxes as the coalition agreement says then you need to do something about Air Passenger Duty. That does not mean scrapping it as the airlines have been arguing, but turning it into a per-plane levy that finally provides a clear incentive for airlines to operate fuller aircraft. Carbon floor price Next, your decision to offer tax breaks to those energy intensive firms that will be adversely affected by the planned carbon footprint is justified, up to a point. Green groups will complain about more handouts being given to some of the UK's most polluting firms, including those that have already received huge windfalls from the EU emissions trading scheme. But the fact remains that, if the price of energy rises too far, the UK's heavy industry will relocate overseas, resulting in no net reduction in emissions. However, it is critical any support mechanisms are carefully structured to ensure that the only beneficiaries are firms that would really migrate overseas if nothing was done. Support should also be specifically targeted so that it noly supports investments that will curb emissions and enhance energy efficiency for the firms that benefit. Moreover, the introduction of the carbon floor price and related support package offers the perfect opportunity to review the UK's labyrinthine carbon pricing policy framework. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is already being reviewed, while we are still waiting on the decision as to whether large firms should face mandatory emission reporting requirements. Firm leadership and a clear signal that we will introduce mandatory reporting rules and launch a simplified carbon tax to replace the CRC would drive growth in the energy efficiency and consultancy sectors while delivering long-term savings to businesses. Enhanced Capital Allowances Growth in energy efficiency sectors could also be stimulated by an expansion in the Enhanced Capital Allowances programme. I t is already working, but the list of qualifying technologies is too narrow. If you really want companies to step up investment in projects that will deliver long-term benefits to the UK this is one of the easiest ways of doing it. Green Deal and Green Investment Bank Green businesses are craving more detail on the £200m of incentives promised to support the Green Deal scheme and the timeline for the full launch of the Green Investment Bank. Both flagship schemes are meant to be up and running next year, but with just months to go many companies with a serious interest in the new initiatives lack the information they need to move forward with investments. Please do not disappoint on either front. Waste and landfill tax Last week, your Cabinet colleague Caroline Spelman offered the landfill tax as an example of good, stable green regulation that helped stimulate a UK waste management industry that is growing at over four per cent a year. Yet, when offered the opportunity to build on its success and introduce more good regulation to support the UK's efforts to become a zero waste society she opted for a do nothing approach. Can the Treasury do better? There are plenty of measures you could introduce that would help curb waste levels, while proving popular with the public. The most obvious is a plastic bag tax that is already in place in Wales and has secured support from everyone from Friends of the Earth to the Daily Mail. Retailers would moan that it would be a symbolic gesture that would have little impact on actual waste levels, but is a symbolic gesture that makes people think about resource efficiency such as bad thing? A hypothecated bag tax where the revenue raised goes to support the kind of recycling incentive schemes so popular with the government's 'nudge unit' would go a long way to enhancing your green credentials. Low carbon infrastructure The key question is how could all these various tax breaks and investments be funded? BusinessGreen does not have hundreds of civil servants working on the precise costings of each of the proposals outlined above, but what has become plain during the flurry of announcements proceeding your address today is that there is money available. In the past few days alone reports have suggested that £200m is available to support the Green Deal, £5bn can be found to drive infrastructure investment, and £1bn will replace the youth job scheme that was scrapped last year. You could raise a further £250m by scrapping Eric Pickles' ridiculous bin collections crusade and an estimated £300,000 by calling Michael Gove into your office and explaining that, during times of austerity, religiously motivated vanity projects such as the decision to send a copy of the Bible with his own foreword to every school in the country are utterly indefensible. Having identified this 'underspend' there are countless green projects out there that could be accelerated by directing investment away from high carbon infrastructure, such as roads, and towards the low carbon alternatives such as rail, grid, and renewable energy projects we urgently need. Most notably, around £100m would resolve the crisis currently enveloping the solar industry, which threatens to make tens of thousands of people redundant, while relatively modest increases in research funding for offshore wind, marine energy, geothermal power and nanotechnology development, such as the famed graphene project at Manchester University, could have a huge impact on the long-term health of the UK's green economy. The indications are that you will once again sideline the green economy and play scant attention to the fact that it is one of the few sectors to deliver the economic growth you crave. For the sake of those green businesses which are desperate to work with you to deliver a recovery that is sustainable in every sense of the word, we can only hope that those indications are wrong. Yours sincerely, James Murray &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a7b5c05/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Plan+A+isn%27t+working+-+It%27s+time+for+Plan+G+for+green+growth&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2128194%2Fplan-isnt-plan-green-growth%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DPlan%2BA%2Bisn%2527t%2Bworking%2B-%2BIt%2527s%2Btime%2Bfor%2BPlan%2BG%2Bfor%2Bgreen%2Bgrowth" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Plan+A+isn%27t+working+-+It%27s+time+for+Plan+G+for+green+growth&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2128194%2Fplan-isnt-plan-green-growth%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DPlan%2BA%2Bisn%2527t%2Bworking%2B-%2BIt%2527s%2Btime%2Bfor%2BPlan%2BG%2Bfor%2Bgreen%2Bgrowth" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120127031707/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a7b5c05/kg/294-295/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120127031707/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a7b5c05/kg/294-295/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2128194/plan-isnt-plan-green-growth?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Plan+A+isn%27t+working+-+It%27s+time+for+Plan+G+for+green+growth</guid></item><item><title>Where are the new Mandelas when the climate needs them?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a7879b7/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21281310Cmandelas0Eclimate0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FWhere0Kare0Kthe0Knew0KMandelas0Kwhen0Kthe0Kclimate0Kneeds0Kthem0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Nelson Mandela in 2008 (Photo - SA The Good News)" src="/IMG/358/203358/nelson-mandela-2008-185x114.jpg?1322490215" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; The Durban climate talks are closer to a breakthrough than most people think - all we need is strong leaders &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; There has been a lot written over the past few months about the glaring leadership deficit as the world seeks to tackle its seemingly intractable economic woes. The newly fashionable parlour game for the media commentariat involves imagining how leaders from the not so distant past would have responded to the eurozone crisis, the banking crisis, and the growth crisis afflicting the UK and other Western economies, not to mention the seemingly inexorable transfer of power, prestige and influence to the world's emerging economies. The general consensus among Conservative and Liberal columnists alike is that previous generations of leaders would have made a darned sight better fist of things than the drift and confusion provided by Merkel, Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama et al. Where are the strong leaders with a coherent plan, they ask? Where are the Churchills, the Roosevelts, the De Gaulles, the Kennedys, the Reagans, the Gorbachevs, the Mandelas when you need them? Hell, given the current paucity of the political response to the EU's economic train wreck there are plenty of people who would prefer to see the Kohls, Mitterands, Clintons and even Blairs of more recent history at the helm. Such comparisons are, if not wholly inaccurate, almost always hugely unfair. The current generation of Western leaders faces a uniquely complex set of challenges and has a uniquely limited array of levers with which to solve them. Moreover, the interconnected, ultra-transparent, 24-hour news dominated, web-enabled, global village in which we now live makes it far harder to quietly exercise the old tools of statecraft that used to prove so effective at getting things done. They can't even have a private conversation slagging off a head of state they find annoying and obstructive without its being recorded and broadcast to the world. And yet it is hard to imagine that the generation of hardened political operators who built and nurtured the EU, or ended the Cold War and secured America's position as the one remaining superpower, would fail to come up with a more compelling and coherent response to the current crises than the confusing fudge with which we are currently burdened. Whether we choose to blame the closed shop modern that politics has become, the obsession with media spin over policy action, the debilitating influence of lobbyists, or the increasingly dysfunctional nature of our systems of democracy or governance, the art of strong political leadership undoubtedly appears to be in serious decline. And nowhere is this clearer than in the appallingly limp response to climate change and the international efforts to tackle it. It is instructive that Christiana Figueres chose to open the Durban Summit by quoting Nelson Mandela and his memorable observation that "it always seems impossible until it is done". But sadly, there is no latter day Mandela with the rhetorical and political skills necessary to deliver a major breakthrough in attendance at Durban. In fact, very few world leaders will even bother to attend, leaving junior ministers to wrestle with the fine print of Green Funds, CDMs, REDDs, Second Commitment Periods. The real tragedy is that we are closer than ever to a meaningful and workable global agreement on how to tackle climate change. If you detach yourself from the increasingly fractious rows over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and the scale of climate funding on offer, large swathes of the talks are in pretty good shape. There is near universal acceptance among the world's political and business leaders that climate change is a real and severe threat that requires urgent action, while the latest attempt by forces unknown to use hacked emails to stoke up doubts over climate science have not had a fraction of the impact they had two years ago. The Copenhagen and Cancun Accords, while insufficient on their own, have provided emission reduction pledges which, if honoured, would get the world close to the emission reductions necessary by 2020. And, most importantly, tangible progress has been made over the past two years on key enabling mechanisms, such as the expansion of forestry credit schemes, reforms to carbon markets, the development of emissions measurement, reporting and verification standards, and crucially the formation of a $100bn a year green fund for investment in climate mitigation and adaptation projects. Meanwhile, as BusinessGreen reports near daily, the low carbon sector is riding out the global economic turmoil surprisingly well with investment in renewables and other key infrastructure outpacing that made in carbon intensive projects, and technological developments constantly bringing down the cost of emissions reductions. It is this context that explains why some otherwise jaded observers of these long running talks remain optimistic that significant breakthroughs can still be delivered in Durban over the next fortnight. And yet the overwhelming emotion characterising the launch of the talks is one of unremitting pessimism. There is not the slightest indication at this stage that a compromise can be reached to break the deadlock surrounding the vexed topic of the Kyoto Protocol, while reports from the BBC and The Guardian have revealed deep splits over when any treaty should come into effect, with the EU and others calling for any agreement to be finalised by 2015 and the US, India and others apparently pushing for nothing concrete to come into effect until 2020. Ministers have attempted to spin this rift as a technicality, noting that those who want an agreement by 2015 would expect it to be enacted around 2020. But this ignores the central point: how can a delay of four years, let alone a delay of nine years, be justified if the world's leaders really are in agreement that we are facing an existential threat to global health and prosperity? None of this is to underplay the real and complex barriers to an agreement that will dominate the next fortnight; you have only to look at the dysfunctional nature of US domestic politics to understand how daunting some of these challenges are. But none of them looks so insurmountable that bold and confident leadership could not find a way round them. The framework for a deal is there. A deal based on binding emissions targets for industrialised nations, voluntary targets for poor countries and something in between for emerging economies, as well as stringent emissions reporting standards, the rapid expansion of forest protection schemes, and the creation of a public-private green investment fund. Such a treaty is already largely agreed in principle, could be enacted within a couple of years, and would command significant business support. All we are lacking is the political leadership to make it happen. Instead, it is almost certain that we will get two weeks of bickering over technicalities that will leave those businesses leading the low carbon revolution once again having to reassure themselves that they are on the right track and their commitment to addressing the climate change threat will be vindicated. And all for the want of the kind of real political leadership made famous by Mandela and his peers. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a7879b7/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=Where+are+the+new+Mandelas+when+the+climate+needs+them%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2128131%2Fmandelas-climate%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DWhere%2Bare%2Bthe%2Bnew%2BMandelas%2Bwhen%2Bthe%2Bclimate%2Bneeds%2Bthem%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=Where+are+the+new+Mandelas+when+the+climate+needs+them%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2128131%2Fmandelas-climate%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DWhere%2Bare%2Bthe%2Bnew%2BMandelas%2Bwhen%2Bthe%2Bclimate%2Bneeds%2Bthem%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120006458495/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a7879b7/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/120006458495/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a7879b7/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:40:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2128131/mandelas-climate?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=Where+are+the+new+Mandelas+when+the+climate+needs+them%3F</guid></item><item><title>The battle for the future of solar in the UK has been revealed – but which side is DECC on?</title><link>http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a666c36/l/0L0Sbusinessgreen0N0Cbg0Cjames0Eblog0C21278790Cbattle0Efuture0Esolar0Euk0Erevealed0Edecc0DWT0Brss0If0FJames0Eblog0GWT0Brss0Ia0FThe0Kbattle0Kfor0Kthe0Kfuture0Kof0Ksolar0Kin0Kthe0KUK0Khas0Kbeen0Krevealed0K0JE20J80A0J930Kbut0Kwhich0Kside0Kis0KDECC0Kon0J3F/story01.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;!-- author --&gt; James Murray &lt;!-- end-author --&gt; &lt;!-- link --&gt; &lt;a href=http://www.businessgreen.com/&gt;BusinessGreen&lt;/a&gt; &lt;!-- end-link --&gt; &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!--- Start Artilce title image --&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Department of Energy &amp;amp; Climate Change" src="/IMG/377/201377/decc-185x114.jpg?1320781810" title="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;!-- End Article Title Image&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- subheading --&gt; &lt;!-- end-subheading --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- summary --&gt; Explosive leaked report reveals uncertainty over future of UK's solar strategy &lt;!-- end-summary --&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- content --&gt; There is a perfectly legitimate argument against the UK diverting resources to support the development of a domestic solar industry. Solar energy is currently very expensive and the UK's climate means it will never be as effective or reliable here as it is in warmer climes. There is a case for saying that a relatively small country with finite skills and resources should focus its efforts to decarbonise on a small number of more mature technologies, such as wind, nuclear, biomass, and cleaner fossil fuels, targeting incentives and support at these areas and leaving alternative technologies to cope as best they can on their own. Personally, I don't buy this argument on the grounds that solar is seeing some of the fastest rates of cost reduction of any energy technology, green or otherwise, and improvements in manufacturing and nanotechnology hold out the potential for solar becoming cheaper than current forms of energy, even in northerly countries with a climate like that of the UK. I'd argue there is a strong case for subsidising solar at a reasonable level over the next few years in order to establish the domestic industry and skills base that will then allow for the mass roll out of the technology when it does become fully competitive. However, we strive to be as technology agnostic as possible at BusinessGreen and it is important to acknowledge that there are concerns about the viability of solar in the UK amongst both high profile environmentalists and respected energy industry experts. It is possible to construct a plan that would allow for the UK economy to be decarbonised with minimal reliance on solar technologies. There are plenty of influential voices out there who would argue that we'd be better served in the long run to marginalise solar and focus our low carbon energy strategy on a mix of nuclear, wind, and carbon capture and storage. The problem – as revealed by the explosive analysis of a meeting between DECC officials and the solar industry that is currently doing the rounds of the solar sector and was today leaked to BusinessGreen – is that this debate on the future of solar is being had behind closed doors at the highest echelons of Whitehall at the same time as the renewables industry is being publicly told solar remains an important part of the UK's energy plans. To hear that senior officials within DECC are openly questioning solar's suitability for the UK and regard many of the jobs created by the industry as temporary and unsustainable only confirms what many solar firms have long suspected. But worst still, it further fuels levels of investor uncertainty that are already at unsustainable levels. The proposal of deep and rapid cuts to solar feed-in tariffs and the government's point blank refusal to look at whether additional funds could be found to protect against the worst impacts of the reforms (remember, this week alone £200m has just been found to support the Green Deal and £1bn has been identified to drive youth employment initiatives) increasingly looks like a fudged compromise between those in DECC who want the UK to have a solar industry and those who are unconvinced we want or need one. This internal battle leaves the solar industry (and indeed the wider energy industry) in an appallingly unstable position. Leaving aside the difficulty of coping with the pace and scale of the cuts to feed-in tariffs that are now expected, solar firms need to decide whether they believe the ministers who claim they want to put the sector back on a "sustainable growth path", or the officials who have clearly left some within the industry with the impression solar may not have much of a future in the UK. Imagine trying to convince investors and customers to back the sector when you are faced with that little dilemma. The government is now taking so much flak over its handling of the cuts to feed-in tariffs (witness Chris Huhne's shellacking on Question Time last night) that it urgently needs to rethink its strategy. It is time for some tough decisions to be taken. Ministers need to make it clear once and for all whether they believe solar will represent an important part of the UK's energy mix going forward or not. There is plenty of evidence to suggest such a stance would represent a grievous error of judgement, but if they do not think solar is suitable for the UK, then they need to bite the bullet and let everyone know their position. That way green investors and entrepreneurs can start making decisions from an informed position and divert their energy and finance into those low carbon sectors the government does believe in. If they believe, as they claim, that the reforms proposed for the feed-in tariff scheme are a painful short-term solution to a short-term problem and the UK has the potential to build a vibrant and successful solar industry, then they need to tell their officials to shut up about any doubts they may have and focus their efforts on developing a policy framework that can deliver sustainable and stable growth for the sector. If that requires additional funding and a compromise on the appallingly mishandled proposed cuts to incentives (which it does), then that is what ministers and officials have to deliver. The government needs to decide which side it is on in the solar debate. And, for the good of the whole low carbon economy, it has to make that decision fast. &lt;!-- end-content --&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='http://feeds.businessgreen.com/c/554/f/7119/s/1a666c36/mf.gif' border='0'/&gt;&lt;div class='mf-viral'&gt;&lt;table border='0'&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/sendemail2.html?title=The+battle+for+the+future+of+solar+in+the+UK+has+been+revealed+%E2%80%93+but+which+side+is+DECC+on%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2127879%2Fbattle-future-solar-uk-revealed-decc%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2Bbattle%2Bfor%2Bthe%2Bfuture%2Bof%2Bsolar%2Bin%2Bthe%2BUK%2Bhas%2Bbeen%2Brevealed%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2Bbut%2Bwhich%2Bside%2Bis%2BDECC%2Bon%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/emailthis2.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign='middle'&gt;&lt;a href="http://res.feedsportal.com/viral/bookmark.cfm?title=The+battle+for+the+future+of+solar+in+the+UK+has+been+revealed+%E2%80%93+but+which+side+is+DECC+on%3F&amp;link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessgreen.com%2Fbg%2Fjames-blog%2F2127879%2Fbattle-future-solar-uk-revealed-decc%3FWT.rss_f%3DJames-blog%26WT.rss_a%3DThe%2Bbattle%2Bfor%2Bthe%2Bfuture%2Bof%2Bsolar%2Bin%2Bthe%2BUK%2Bhas%2Bbeen%2Brevealed%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2Bbut%2Bwhich%2Bside%2Bis%2BDECC%2Bon%253F" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://res3.feedsportal.com/images/bookmark.gif" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/118102547733/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a666c36/kg/294/a2.htm"&gt;&lt;img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/118102547733/u/0/f/7119/c/554/s/1a666c36/kg/294/a2.img" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:47:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2127879/battle-future-solar-uk-revealed-decc?WT.rss_f=James-blog&amp;WT.rss_a=The+battle+for+the+future+of+solar+in+the+UK+has+been+revealed+%E2%80%93+but+which+side+is+DECC+on%3F</guid></item></channel></rss>

