On this post, I will list a group of articles on British politics. Unfortunately, there have been quite a lot in recent times, hence this way to deal with them. These are mostly to do with climate and environment, rather than animals, though obviously this is of importance. It should be noted, that while some of these sound like they are contradictory, they are not, though I would argue that some suggest underlying conflict which needs sorting asap. (Given its length, do use ctrl f, which will allow you to jump to any article that specfically interests you
–Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to max out North sea oil
–Bottom trawling of fishing nets has been found to release large amounts of carbon – 370 million tonnes each year around the world (a problem in the north sea, but also worldwide)
–4 Electric heaters adverts banned in the UK for suggesting they are cheaper than gas
–UK ‘used to be a leader on climate’, cry EU lawmakers, as the UK backtracks, Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe, Various environmental protections dropped since Brexit
–Wind power saved Northern Ireland £243 million last year
-Tories (UK conservatives) urged to end idiotic £1.8 billion tax break for UK fishing fleet
–‘Smart’ trap trial raises hopes American mink can be driven from the UK
-UK government refuse to admit idea that nature has rights
–A new battery in the UK is to store enough power keep 90,000 homes running through a blackout
Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to max out North sea oil
Despite a recognized need to transition away from fossil fuels, Rishi Sunak is giving licences for further north sea oil and gas. Its published aim is to boost fossil fuel extraction – something that almost every person in the UK knows is against our interests. For the amount of money that is going to be spend we would be far better installing heat pumps and encouraging electric cars.
I would be very hesitant as an investor, as it is highly likely that the next government will reverse this. Furthermore, this infrastructure will be producing fossil fuels for use, at a time when the world has agreed we must have transitioned away. It seems odd to take such a large bet against the survival of the world as we know it.
Bottom trawling of fishing nets is relatively common, particularly in the north sea (it should be noted that this also does much damage, see the picture below)
Over the period that this was looked at, (1996-2020) it was estimated that between 8.5 and 9.2 billion tonnes of carbon was released around the world (this is as damaging to underwater environments as deforestation on land). More worryingly, 55-60% of this carbon ends up in the atmosphere within 9 years. Worst offending areas include East China sea, Baltic, North Sea and the Greenland sea which combine to emit huge amounts of carbon. This carbon if not released, remains stored in the sea-bed for thousands of years to come.
4 Electric heaters adverts banned in the UK for suggesting they are cheaper than gas
With things like heat pumps, electric heating can be significantly cheaper to run than a gas boiler (other areas like transport is already far cheaper to run on electricity). However, direct heating is not one of these. Unfortunately, unscrupulous advertisers have been suggesting that their electric heaters are good for the planet and your wallet – they have been banned by UK trading standards. Each are playing into the current high cost of heating a home as a result of the Ukraine crisis. Oddly, all 4 also used the same image, even though they came from different firms. None of the firms responded to questions from the Advertising trading standards body.
UK 'used to be a leader on climate', cry EU lawmakers, as the UK backtracks, Northern Ireland 'dirty corner of Europe, Various environmental protections dropped since brexit
If the Brexit campaign had been honest, and stated that by escaping Europe, we are free to poison our waterways, fields, air and seas it is highly unlikely that they would have won the vote (after all only a swing of 1 vote in 50 was needed), but now many Brexiteers have got what they wanted, and the EU cannot stand up for us (one would hope that UK parliament would do this, but history does not suggest it is likely).
A green group MEP said it was tragic, while others lament the extra effort that will be needed to trade across the channel, if environmental rules slip. Of course, this is not new, with so many promises having been broken since Michael Gove (at the time environmental secretary) promised a ‘green Brexit’. While EU is not angels, since Brexit they have gradually improved rules (banning harmful pesticides, tax carbon emissions on imported goods, regulate batteries and clean air), while we have rapidly removed many important ones from existence. This is expected to only get worse, as we relax rules while the EU strengthens them. It should be noted, that these rules are in place to protect civilians, and unless you are a senior executive in one of these companies these changes will make little difference to your income.
Our water quality has dropped. We have also dropped air quality rules, as EU has increased them.
Another area, is the EU is working to have schemes for less well of to help move across in the energy transition. This is less well planned in the UK, with many poor people living in council houses that are poorly insulated and as such end up costing more to run
There has been little effort to list these changes, leaving businesses to invest large amounts to keep up. Given much trade goes out of the UK, many have found that the easiest thing is to simply remain in line with EU rules.
We were recognized across Europe, as leading in decarbonizing our economy. Are we still? We were originally sold this as a way to set ourselves up to fulfil markets in the future – unfortunately mind changing by the Conservatives have destroyed many of these markets anyway.
Wind power saved Northern Ireland £243 million last year
A report on Northern Irelands wind industry found, that without these wind-turbines generating power, £176 million extra would have had to be spent on importing gas, and burning this extra gas would have cost roughly £70 million in carbon credits. This also reduced emissions by around 0.9 million tonnes of carbon (equivalent to around 200,000 homes).
In Northern Ireland, 47.4% of electricity consumption was met from renewables, and of this 83.8% came from wind (this compares to 39.6% in the rest of the UK – though progress has been fast, with 2010 only having 7% from renewables).
Clearly there is a long way to go, but this is both saving money and the planet.
Surprise, Surprise: as the government was told, a 10 year study has shown culling is not best way to cut Bovine TB Surprise,
Despite scientific advice being against the culling, we have just passed 10 years since badger culling in the UK started. A far more effective programme, which includes
- Improved cattle testing
- Better financial and mental health support for farmers
- Cattle and badger vaccinations
would amount to a far more effective effort to tackle Bovine TB. Over those 10 years 210237 badgers have been killed at a cost of £58.8 million without having a significant impact on cattle TB. This illness costs the UK taxpayer around £100 million a year, and around 20,000 cows are killed each year to try to reduce its spread.
In 2021 the government promised to end culling by 2025, but is now considering to replace it with epidemiological culling, which will aim to eliminate every badger in a specific area base on specific evidence (current rules require a 70% death rate)
Far more successful methods of control already exist which include reduced cattle movements, improved biosecurity and better cattle testing and vaccines.
While badgers do consist of a small reservoir for the illness, it is estimated that 94% of infections are cow to cow, with just 5.7% coming from badgers.
While several scientific studies have found to positive impact from the culling, DEFRA has said that its data suggests an overall reduction of 56% in cattle TB incidence rates across the first 52 cull areas after 4 years of culling. However, this analysis has not been peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal. Analysis of their findings by Prof David Macdonald of the University of Oxford highlighted the absence of any scientific control and concluded: “the badger culling component may be delivering something or nothing, and the analysis leaves us none the wiser”.
What is clear is BTB is a tragedy for badgers, farmers, taxpayers and those trying in good faith to solve this issue. The £58.8 spent on culling has had no quantifiable effect, and has demoralised everyone involved.
The DEFRA response to this is available online, I have to say that it sounds rubbish, and basically says its everyone else’s fault. The government appears to have got the farmers on side, though with 85% supporting the continuance of the cull, despite the likely negative result. It is clear, that a great deal of education is required, as most farmers are not aware that 94% of transmission is done cow to cow. In 2010 efforts to work on a vaccine were claimed to be 10 years away, unfortunately we are still in the place, where a test cannot differentiate between a diseased animal, and one merely vaccinated.
It should be noted, that Labour has pledged to halt the cull. While they have not talked about what would replace it, it would seem sensible to attack the 94% of transmissions which is cow to cow, rather than the 6% that is badger to cow.
Tories (UK conservatives) urged to end idiotic £1.8 billion tax break for UK fishing fleet
This subsidy makes up 15-18% of the fishing fleets income, but threatens to empty the sea of fish. The diesel subsidies are calculated to be worth £1.8 billion over a decade, and without them many sectors would be unprofitable. As such, these parts of the fishing fleet should be retired, it is foolish to keep them going in this way.
What is worse, is that this tax break benefits the most fuel-intensive, climate chang gas-emitting and industrial fishing methods, such as trawling and dredging, acting as a disincentive to developing a more fuel-efficient and carbon smart industry (according to campaigners).
'Smart' trap trial raises hopes American mink can be driven from the UK
A novel ‘smart’ trap has allowed the eradication of the American mink from East Anglia, raising the hope that this highly damaging invasive species could be eradicated from UK waterways, giving breathing room for water birds as well as mammals such as the water vole (Ratty from the wind in the willows).
American mink (only here because of escapes (or so-called animal lovers “releases) ) from fur farms and have gone on to decimate populations of water voles as well as various native birds, fish and amphibians. This is the first time that they have been successfully eradicated from anywhere, so to remove them from a whole county is a big step forwards.
They have used scent from their anal glands, to lure animals into hundreds of traps, and it is a system that should be readily repeated across the rest of the country.
The smart traps also alerted the owner, when they shut, which meant that they did not need checking every day.
It will need to be rapidly rolled out, in order to stop mink damage to various species that is still ongoing around the coast. Having said this, places like nesting birds along the coast and on cliffs, might well make easy places to trap, and therefore a good place to start?
It took 4 years, and 441 smart traps, but monitoring confirms that there is no sign of mink reproduction in 2023 across central and easter Norfolk, and Suffolk, which amounts to almost 5% of England. They also put traps along boundaries, so as to stop mink replacing those in the zone from outside. Run by a coalition of conservation charities, it lead to the creation of the Waterlife recovery trust.
A global expert in removing invasive species like this said “Until now, the complete removal of American mink from Britain has been an impossible dream, but the success of this trial offers hope that a century of catastrophic damage to precious native wildlife can be brought to an end.
UK government can never accept idea nature has rights, delegate tells UN
I find this kind of thing embarrasing. This concept is recognized in UK declarations and quite rightly is described as contradictory and undemocratic. It was not the only country – US EU Canada and the UK all spoke against the resolution, thought his was partly because Bolivia had submitted the resolution at the last minute. The argument suggests that rights cannot be given to nature or mother earth.
I personally, am greatly embarrassed by this. Many people from countries which have signed this, have spent lifetimes fighting against a declaration like this. Furthermore, this declaration, could be used to argue for the destruction of much of what remains on earth. I believe that in order to have as much of a chance of steering a path away from run away global warming, we need as much wilderness and wildlife left on the planet as possible.
The Earth Rights Advocacy Clinic at New York University said our position was particularly paradoxical (at best) as we recognise rights for non-human entities like corporations but not for non-human living beings, yet this is contradictory because, while acknowledging different cultural rights, and Indigenous worldview, we are still imposing a western understanding of rights and law.
It should be noted, that despite this position, there are many people in the UK over history, who have held quite different views.
UK finally (earlier this week) quit a treaty -Energy Charter Transition, which allowed fossil fuel firms to sue governments over climate policies
How does a treaty so stupid get ratified? The UK, alongside France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands are withdrawing, from the charter as it ‘penalises’ attempts to shift o net zero.
Surely, a treaty like this is incompatible with continued life on earth? It is an absurd treaty.
It is called the Energy Charter Treaty, and these countries have abandoned it after efforts to align it with net zero plans failed.
It is a treaty that should never have failed. The idea that a fossil fuel companies rights to extract, were held above those of countries who would be effected is quite bizarre.
The treaty had allowed fossil fuel investors to sue states for lost profits, in an opaque coporation arbitration system set up to protect fossil fuel investors in teh former Soviet union in the 1990s.
The UK energy security and net zero minister said, “The energy charter treaty is outdated and in urgent need of reform, but talks have stalled and sensible renewal looks increasingly unlikely. Remaining a member would not support our transition to cleaner, cheaper energy, and could even penalise us for our world-leading efforts to deliver net zero.”
Treaty protections for new energy investments will cease in 1 years time when the withdrawal takes effect. It is unclear what will happen to claims the UK as entered under the deal (though these should be an embarrassment).
The UK shadow climate change minister said ” We are in an urgent global fight against the climate emergency. We cannot allow fossil fuel companies to stop democratically elected governments from taking strong climate action.
This charter has been in existence since 1998 (a time when we should have known better) and it is about time that it sees the end. The investor state dispute settlements (ISDS) is the mechanism which is so deadly, and this lives on in a number of other treaties including the Pacific trade deal – these must crumble like the original.
It should never be possible for any company to take a government to court for acting in the best interests of its people. While it is true that 54 countries are still listed as signatories of the ECT many have already exited or plan to after failure of modernisation plans.
UK to ban boilers in new homes, and rules out hydrogen as heating source, but it already makes little sense as a car fuel
Despite news in recent weeks about white hydrogen discoveries, I fully agree with the UK governments decision on this. Hydrogen leaks, and even if thousands of times more hydrogen is found, it will never keep the world going long-term. The report says that there is no “practical way” that boilers of any type will “deliver significan carbon savings” and “zero-carbon ready homes.
It has already been ruled out as a replacement for gas (despite previously being touted both by government and energy industry representatives as logical replacement for natural gas.
In theory, if made from green sources, hydrogen could be completely clean, however the vast majority is made from fossil fuels which really does not make it a viable alternative.
A British government advisor called for 20% hydrogen blending with gas, and some of the biggest boiler manufacturers called for them to by hydrogen compatible by 2025. As late as December 2022 this was also a policy of the UK government.
However, outside this little bubble, few think it is a good idea. Both cost and carbon emissions are not solved by this change, and the cost of making hydrogen is significanly more expensive than pumping natural gas – clean hydrogen is not made in large enough quantities to be used in any significant levels.
“Hydrogen use for domestic heating is less economic, less efficient, more resource intensive and associated with larger environmental impacts”. Heat pumps are vastly more efficient uses of the electricity we produce – we are far from producing enough electricity to waste on ideas like this.
To put it in perspective, 1 litre of hydrogen in a hydrogen car will drive a hydrogen car around 60 miles. However, this takes 50-55kwh to make this. Even a tesla semi will do 30-40 miles on this. Most small electric cars can do between 4 and 5 miles per kwh, so putting 50-55kwh directly into a long range tesla 3, you can drive close to 250 miles.
Even the Hummer ev pickup can get 1.48 miles per kwh, or 74 miles for the same electricity that it takes to make 1 liter of hydrogen.
Anything which makes a Hummer EV sound efficient is clearly not.
UK government is removing the right to climate protesters defence is feared to erode the right to trial by jury
Fears of what is likely to happen as a result of climate change are not stupid. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is foolish to not be concerned about climate change.
As such, the attorney generals attempt to remove the climate protesters use of consent defence is a slippery slope. If they can degree that a reasonable reason for action is no longer reasonable (and therefore cannot be laid before a jury) then it removes the right to a fair defence of your actions.
The attorney general is trying to remove this, as a result of a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. While they have argued that the “consent defence” whereby it is argued that they had an honest belief that the owner would have consented if they had known the reason that the action had been taken.
This argument has only recently started, as a result of Suella Braverman removing another possible defence
“As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.”
It is not a fair trial if members of UK politics can simply rule that certain mitigating factors no longer exist. Indeed, it has been clearly put that this is simply an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants.
It is unacceptable for any government to pre-judge cases before the courts, and this is essentially what they are doing by removing the right to reasonable arguments for actions. It is the logical result of our insane head-first rushing towards run-away global warming to be fearful, and pushed into action.
The government needs to take action. Any arguments that we cannot afford it are simply absurd (not least because run-away global warming will cost future generations tens or hundreds of times this amount just to live). Humanity have in theory always strived to leave better worlds to their children than their parents had – this is the first time where humanity has essentially said ‘who cares’ about our descendants, by our actions if not by our words.
A new battery in the UK is to store enough power keep 90,000 homes running through a blackout
The Buxton BESS project will improve grid stability and therefore will support the grids greening in the future. As more and more of our power comes from wind and solar, there is an increasing need for huge batteries to store this power overnight.
This is just the latest of many projects to bring increasing battery storage to the UK.