Environment

Monbiot’s mission

George Monbiot is undergoing an astounding and very public transformation. Last week he overcame the habit of a lifetime and fully endorsed nuclear power as a safe energy source. He went further this week, attacking the anti-nuclear movement for perpetuating lies and ignoring the consensus around scientific facts. He levels special criticism at the allegedly lax scholarship of Dr Helen Caldicott, a decorated primate of the anti-nuclear communion.  He also debunks the myths surrounding the disaster at Chernobyl and laments that campaigners have abused that tragedy by exaggerating its consequences. Monbiot’s tone is neither arch nor righteous. Rather, he’s disappointed and the piece has a dignified poignancy. He concludes:     

The cost to a nation

When the West looks at Japan, it’s strange that so much attention falls on the Japanese nuclear plants when the tsunami – water, mud and debris – was by far the greater killer. The picture of the tsunami damage is becoming clearer all the time. Here, from my vantage point of Singapore, is the latest summary: Deaths: 11,938 people are dead. More than 7,000 of them died in Miyagi prefecture, over 3,000 in Iwate and 1,000 in Fukushima. 15,478 people are missing. The death toll rises daily. Searches are on for orphans. Displacement: 164,200 people have been evacuated due to the tsunami and live in makeshift shelters. Only one-third of

When it comes to global warming, rational debate is what we need

We had a sell-out debate on global warming at The Spectator on Tuesday and, as I found out this morning, the debate is still going on. The teams were led by Nigel Lawson and Sir David King, and I was in the audience. I tweeted my praise of Simon Singh’s argument as he made it: it was a brilliant variation on the theme of “don’t think – trust the experts”. He seems to have discovered the tweet this morning, and responded with a volley of five questions for me. Then David Aaronovitch weighed in, followed by Simon Mayo. At 8.35am! I had the choice between replying, or carrying on with

Nuclear hysteria

The above Japanese video – explaining the nuclear accident to children — makes a lot more sense than many of the hysterical reports we have been reading in the last few days. The figures are not out yet, but it’s likely that tens of thousands were killed by the tsunami. Yet the newspapers were all focused on the nuclear meltdown — which injured 15 people. The irony is that, when a tsunami strikes, the local nuclear power station is pretty much the safest place to be. This is the argument advanced in the leading article for the current issue of The Spectator (subscribers, click here; non-subscribers please join us for

A disaster film

And, meanwhile, William Hague and David Cameron have issued statements on the disaster. Here’s Hague: “My thoughts are with the people of Japan at this time. We are in contact with the Japanese government and I have asked our Ambassador in Tokyo to offer all assistance we can as Japan responds to this terrible disaster. We are also working urgently to provide consular assistance to British Nationals. Our Embassy and Consulates-General across Japan are in touch with local authorities and making contact with British Nationals to provide consular assistance. We have set up a crisis centre in the Foreign Office to co-ordinate our response and offer advice to anyone concerned

Disaster in Japan

Graphs and tables cannot ever convey the full tragedy of the situation in Japan, but the one above captures an important fact: that today’s earthquake is historic in size. At 8.9 magnitude, this Japanese disaster is the 7th largest on the US Geological Survey’s books. Because it struck on the seabed, its destructive energy is distilled into the tsunami that is now sweeping across the island. What happens next is uncertain and could potentially worsen the catastrophe. A grim chorus of warning sirens is sounding from the coastlines of the Pacific, as everywhere from the Philippines to the west coast of America readies itself against the swells that may or

Tinkering with solar panel subsidy risks making bad policy worse

The fallout from Chris Huhne’s sudden review of the government’s system of subsidies for small-scale renewable energy gathers momentum. Solar firms, who built business cases on the system of subsidies, are threatening judicial review over the Energy Secretary’s change of direction. So why did the government raise concerns about the policy? Apparently, because it has been too successful. The scheme encourages householders, communities and businesses to cover their roofs in solar panels and erect wind turbines by offering them a generous subsidy for the electricity they produce. It was introduced by the Labour government with three aims: to cut carbon emissions; to help reduce the costs of the technologies; and

Cameron fells the forestry consultation

Despite his easy charm, David Cameron is unsentimental. His dismemberment of Caroline Spelman’s sagging forestry policy at yesterday’s PMQs was as ruthless as it was abrupt. The Prime Minister cannot be an enemy of Judy Dench and other doughty dames, so the hapless environment minister had to be shafted. Cameron’s strategic withdrawal did not end there. Several newspapers report that the 12-week consultation will be curtailed by the end of the week, on the simple grounds that the public does not like it. Spelman is expected to pronounce the project dead in the Commons at lunchtime today, and the chamber will ring with the noise of Labour’s braying benches. Ed

Spelman’s a-turning

The BBC reports that the government has dropped some of its plans to privatise forestry. The general scheme will proceed, but the sale of 15 percent of publicly owned forests will be stalled while the government re-examines the criteria for sale. Obviously this is a set back, but far from a terminal one. The forestry consultation document contains some very sensible ideas. There is no reason for commercial forestry to remain in public ownership. The Forestry Commission loses money and its predominantly coniferous crop and wasting agricultural land wrecks the environment and damages wildlife habitats. Privatisation would not lead to the spoliation of the shires. The document promised to increase

Lost in the woods

The government’s plans for state forestry are so weak and feeble that it is hard to understand why there is so much fuss about them. Maybe people do not realise that three-quarters of the English woodland that they love so much is already privately owned. And those private owners face strict standards on public access and recreation, environmental quality, and conservation. So why is there so much fuss about selling the rest? People forget that broadleaf woodlands comprise just 8 percent of the Forestry Commission’s estate. The other 92 percent is farmland and conifer plantations, and it is hard to get worked up about who owns either of those. But

Spelman’s a lumberjack and she’s ok

The coalition’s plans to privatise Britain’s woodlands have received what is euphemistically termed ‘a mixed reception’. Caroline Spelman’s consultation document and accompanying article in today’s Times (£) may change that fact. Both are historically conscious and upholstered with reassuring pastoral interludes – an elegant departure from most ministerial rambles.   But, this government’s politics breaks well clear from the literary immersion. There is a dose of Thatcherism. Spelman is adamant that the state should not be managing forests, and she wants private companies to exploit commercially valuable forests. She writes: ‘It’s time for the Government to step back and allow those who are most involved with England’s woodlands to play

A flooded world

It looks like the opening of a Hollywood disaster film. The South African government has declared parts of the country disaster areas, after 40 people died in floods in a month. At the same time, the UN is to launch an appeal for emergency flood aid for Sri Lanka, where at least 32 people have died and more than 300,000 have been displaced. Meanwhile flood waters in Australia have left a trail of destruction, at least 18 dead and a billion dollar bill for reconstruction. And in Brazil, survivors of the floods that have killed more than 600 people are frustrated by the lack of government help. Are these floods

Will he be back?

Clichéd, for sure, but it is the line that’s tagged every story about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s departure from office. Will Arnie return to the political fray or enjoy a sun-kissed retirement? The odds of a return to office are long. California, the state that did most to shape America’s self-image in the 20th century, is now like former movie stars who eke out an existence in Hollywood’s run-down parts – they once had it all but have since lost both looks and love. Fair or not – the Californian governor doesn’t have as much power as his peers. Voters give Schwarzenegger part of the blame for the state’s mess; his approval

Leaves on the line

What is happening to trees in Britain? Horse chestnuts now turn brown in July. A microscopic caterpillar eats out the green insides of the leaves; only the outer skins remain. Horse chestnuts also weep dried blood from their bark, and sometimes the huge trees spectacularly die. Alders have been weeping bloody tears and dying. Newspapers warn of sudden oak death and acute oak decline. The Forestry Commission has stopped planting Corsican pine because of red-band needle blight. The problem is globalisation of pests and diseases. Diseases which for millions of years evolved to come to terms with their local hosts are introduced to other countries and find new host trees

Leader: Less heat, more light

We have heard surprisingly little about the climate change jamboree currently underway in Cancun. Before last year’s Copenhagen summit, there was much hullaballoo. Gordon Brown told us that we had ‘fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years’. Yet he and 100 of his political counterparts could not stop the conference from collapsing under the weight of its contradictions. This year, only two dozen world leaders are likely to make the carbon-consuming trek to the Mexican coast. David Cameron, to his credit, will not be one of them. He will not miss much. One paper prepared for the Cancun summit, by Prof Kevin Anderson of

Putting a stop to taxpayer funded environmentalism

It’s that time of year again, time for the world to pay attention to climate change policy for a few weeks.  Most of the year, schemes like the EU Emissions Trading System and the Renewables Obligation just wallow in dysfunction and quietly cost us a fortune, adding to our electricity bills in particular.  Manufacturers pay attention, and higher energy costs threaten to drive industrial jobs abroad, and the poor and elderly feel the effects, even if they don’t know why their bills are rising.  But the only people who really have the staff and the organisational clout to pursue this issue all year round are the environmental campaigns.   Many

Carbon omissions

With the latest round of international climate change negotiations at Cancun less than a week away, Policy Exchange has published research showing that the UK’s and EU’s performance in reducing carbon emissions is not quite what it seems.   According to the official measure, used to determine performance against the Kyoto agreement, the UK’s emissions have fallen.  The UK is set to exceed its Kyoto target of 12.5 percent reduction from 1990 levels.  But, in our new report Carbon Omissions, Policy Exchange has estimated that total UK carbon consumption emissions in fact rose by 30 percent between 1990 and 2006.   The reason is that we import and consume a

Can the Greens make good on the yellow’s broken promises?

One consequence of coalition and the student fees row is, as Nick Clegg said this morning, that the Lib Dems will be more careful about what they sign up to at the next election. This will create political space for a party that is prepared to advocate populist but unrealistic policies such as abolishing tuition fees. I strongly suspect that Labour will choose not to occupy this space, appearing credible will still be the most important thing to them. So, this raises the question of who will try and move into this slot? UKIP aren’t ideologically suited to it, although Farage is a canny enough operator that little can be

The Big Society in action

The Big Society, in so far as it can be defined at all, envisages an empowered people taking responsibility for their local communities. The little platoons’ efforts could determine the atmosphere of a place, by helping to deliver public services, founding employment schemes, running activities that unite the rich and the dispossessed, and exercising more influence over planning authorities. It is, in effect, an assault on adamantine local government, overbearing central government and predominant corporatism. This morning’s Independent has a cockle-warming tale of how the fledgling culture of localism and voluntarism is taking flight: ‘More than 230 separate local campaign groups against wind farms are operating across the UK, from

Hunt the heretic

Eureka, the science magazine from The Times, is in many ways a brilliant accomplishment. Advertising is following readers in an online migration – but James Harding, the editor, personally persuaded advertisers that a new magazine, in a newspaper, devoted to science would work. And here it is: giving the New Scientist a run for its money every month. That’s why it’s such a shame that today’s magazine opens on an anti-scientific piece denouncing those who disagree with the climate consensus. My former colleague Ben Webster, now the paper’s environment correspondent, is an energetic and original journalist – so it’s depressing to see his skills deployed in a game of hunt-the-heretic.