threegenerationsleft

human activity and the destruction of the planet


1 Comment

Revoke legislation which obligates maximising economic recovery of UK oil & gas: petition to government

The UK Infrastructure Act 2015 makes it a legal obligation to “maximise economic recovery of UK petroleum” – committing this and future governments to maximise emissions from UK fossil fuels.

At the same time, they have legal obligations to minimise them: essential because of the climate crisis.


The Infrastructure Act was passed in 2015. 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/section/41/enacted

The Climate Change Act was passed in 2008.
It is legally-binding national legislation to address climate change. UK also signed the Paris Agreement.

More on UK legal duties on climate change:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/

Prof. James Hansen on the planetary emergency:
https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Hansen-letter-to-general-public.pdf

Both Acts appear to contradict one another and the Infrastructure Act operates against the need to be reducing (or stopping altogether) the use of fossil fuels.

Please read all the links and the letter above and sign the petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/259116

At 10,000 signatures…

At 10,000 signatures, the UK government will respond to the petition

At 100,000 signatures…

At 100,000 signatures, the petition will be considered for debate in Parliament



 


Leave a comment

Democracy or Extinction?

This is the title of a a far-reaching report by Media Lens on 22nd January 2019.

http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&mailid=526&key=cb930d676da384e7d00dda36308dd202&subid=9459-27247f5ad5910317f882bc7ac4e817e1&tmpl=component

Here is an extract:

“What will it take for governments to take real action on climate? When will they declare an emergency and do what needs to be done? How much concerted, peaceful public action will be required to disrupt the current economic and political system that is driving humanity to the brink of extinction?

Meanwhile, climate records continue to tumble. 2018 was the hottest for the world’s oceans since records began in the 1950s, continuing a deeply worrying trend. Moreover, the last five years were the five hottest. The consequences are likely to be catastrophic. The oceans are crucial to the Earth’s climate; they absorb more than 90 per cent of the heating generated by greenhouse gases. Yet another sign of serious climate disruption is revealed with seemingly no impact on the juggernaut of economic ‘growth’ and government decision-making.

John Abraham, one of the authors of the new scientific study on this alarming rise in ocean temperatures, said:

‘We scientists sound like a broken record. Every year we present the science and plead for action. Not nearly enough is being done. We can still tackle climate change, but we must act immediately. We have the means to make a difference, we lack only the will.’

It is, of course, heartening to see scientists finally being this outspoken. But it is not accurate to keep repeating the mantra, as many well-intentioned people do, that ‘we’ lack ‘the will’. Who is the ‘we’ here? Big business, powerful financial interests and corporate lobbies have fought tooth and nail to oppose any substantive action. They have battled hard over decades to obscure, rubbish and downplay the science – with huge sums devoted to disinformation campaigns – and to bend government policy in their favour.

US environmentalist Bill McKibben recently observed of the fossil fuel lobby that:

‘The coalition ha[s] used its power to slow us down precisely at the moment when we needed to speed up. As a result, the particular politics of one country for one half-century will have changed the geological history of the earth.’

One could argue that there is a lack of public will to expose and counter corporate power in collusion with nation states; that there needs to be a grassroots revolution to overturn this destructive system of rampant global capitalism. Perhaps there needs to be a revolution in human consciousness; an increased awareness of what it is to be fully human that respects ourselves, other species and the planet itself. Most likely, all of the above. If so, it is vital to say and do much more than merely say, ‘we lack only the will’.

Take the ad-dependent, establishment-preserving, Corbyn-hating Guardian. It obfuscated along similar lines in an editorial sparked by the record-breaking ocean temperatures. Global warming, the editors said:

‘can still be tackled if we act immediately; this is a test of will, not ability.’

But where is the Guardian’s systemic analysis of root causes of climate chaos and what needs to be done about it? The Polish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, who was murdered by right-wing paramilitary forces one hundred years ago this month, warned that global capitalism would lead to environmental destruction. This is not a defect of capitalism, she argued, but an inherent feature of a system that is rooted in brutality, gaping inequality and the unsustainable extraction of natural resources.

In her discussion of Luxemburg’s legacy, Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Bath, noted:

‘This is evident in the recent decision of Brazil’s new far-right president, Bolsonaro, to “integrate the Amazon region into the Brazilian economy”. This would expand the authority and reach of powerful agribusiness corporations into the Amazon Rainforest – threatening the rights and livelihoods of indigenous people and the ecosystems their lives are entwined with.’

This destruction of indigenous peoples and ecosystems has been inflicted on the continent since Columbus ‘discovered’ America in1492. Globally, the process intensified during the Industrial Revolution and, in more recent decades, with the rise of destructive ‘neoliberal’ economic policies pursued with ideological fervour by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and later acolytes. No wonder that Luxemburg saw a stark choice between ‘socialism or barbarism’. Today, the choice is most likely ‘socialism or extinction‘.

To any reader unsettled by the scare word ‘socialism’, simply replace it with ‘democracy’: a genuinely inclusive system where the general population has proper input and control, and does not simply have its wishes overridden by a tiny elite that enriches itself at our, and the planet’s, expense.”


Leave a comment

Climate economics need updating

Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (LSE), has written a letter to the Financial Times on 28th December 2018.  It is copied in its entirety below:

“Your excellent editorial “ How to rescue the global climate change agenda” (December 27) is right to call for a transformation of the policy discussion on climate change in order to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon economy. However, you neglected to highlight a key solution: economists and finance ministries must stop relying on models that are simply not fit for purpose when making investment decisions.

The potential impacts of climate change caused by fossil fuel use are grossly underestimated by the current generation of economic models, which cannot quantify the cost of, and therefore omit, tipping points in the climate system, such as the destabilisation of the land-based ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica, and apply inappropriate discounting such that huge damages to future generations are trivialised.

Similarly, economic models overestimate the costs of new zero-carbon technologies because they do not take adequate account of co-benefits, such as reductions in local air pollution, and of processes such as learning by doing. These models have failed to forecast how quickly the production and development costs of renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar, have fallen over the past few decades and years.

The consequence of these shortcomings was starkly illustrated earlier this month during the Nobel Prize lecture by William Nordhaus, the great pioneer of climate economics. He told the audience in Stockholm that his widely used model indicates “optimal climate policy” would result in global warming of 3C by the end of this century and 4C by 2150. Such a result is simply not credible when compared with the scientific evidence collated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier this year, showing how devastating a global temperature rise of more than 1.5C would be.” 

climate dryness


1 Comment

Church Ecumenical Conference: “A Future for All” – keynote speech by Paul Parker

This conference, organised by Birmingham Anglican Climate Action & Central England Quakers Low Carbon Commitment Forum, was held in July 2018 and was extremely well attended, emphasising perhaps the concern that many Christians have about the effects of climate change in our world today.  It was an opportunity to hear about what other people and organisations are doing to try to counteract the effects of climate change, both on an individual basis and as an organisation or faith community.  There were two keynote speeches, one of which, by Paul Parker, Quakers in Britain Recording Clerk, is reproduced below.

“Have you ever been back to visit your old school? There’s a walk I go on from home which
takes me past my old school. . It looks smaller now, despite having new classrooms and a
lick of paint, but children play outside it as they always did. Last week I met a man who’d
been to visit his father’s old school. They found it, but it was not only in ruins, but under a
metre of salt water. It was claimed by the rising Pacific Ocean; children will never play
outside it again. While we in the UK enjoy a bit of sunshine and grumble about the heat, for
many the reality of climate change bites hard.

We’ve all heard these stories. It’s easy to switch off because of despair, fear, guilt or
annoyance at others telling us how to live our lives. And because of that, there’s been a lot
of thinking about how we talk about it, whether it’s as an opportunity to build healthier
cities; or that there is joy in living simpler, low-carbon lives; or that we’re all in it together.
These points of view are very valid, but perhaps the full truth is more complicated.
It’s also about justice. Historically, as a relatively rich and privileged nation, we’ve benefited from fossil fuels and lots of other commodities at the expense of others. But if we’re serious in our belief that every human is a child of God, then as the UK negotiates what part we play in confronting our global climate crises, it’s important that historically privileged nations, and communities within them, confront their historic responsibility to do more than others to cut carbon and resource collective action. We need to be able to look people from the global South in the eye and say not only that we did what we could, but that we did everything we could.

Our awareness about the scale of the crisis of climate change is fairly recent. But there are
deep truths that we’ve always known.

For example, generations before us may not have been aware of the greenhouse effect. But
it’s always been evident that extracting fossil fuels creates, and indeed feeds on, injustice.
We’re all complicit in this problem of extraction and ‘extractive economies’. But we need to
face up to the fact that extraction is damaging, and it tends to impact not only ecosystems,
but poorer and less powerful social groups, often determined by class and race, around the
world. What do we do about this community living where we want to mine coal? How do
we get away with paying people poorly to extract it? How do we silence people objecting to
having their water sources contaminated by drilling? Often, extraction has relied upon
people who are in the way of so called progress having little power. Naomi Klein has said
that ‘it was the relative ranking of humans that allowed the digging up of all that carbon in
the first place’.

I was talking last week to a sister from Cameroon, caught up in a civil war I hadn’t even
heard about, and who was trying to run a hospital. She said, ‘of course, it’s all about the oil.
And the money doesn’t even stay in the country when they’ve finished.’

I say all this not so that we spiral in to despair, anger or even guilt. But so that we see
purpose in the UK taking radical action now. Perhaps we as people of faith are able to
confront these truths whilst having faith that we can achieve change.

And after all, the truth is, that both collective action for social change, and the low-carbon
society that can result from it, can be joyful, and good for us.

Pope Francis, in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Sì – a radical call for transformation – the
overturning of the economic system as we know it, but also personal transformation – what Francis calls ‘ecological conversion’, and perhaps we Quakers would call ‘ecological
convincement’. I was at a conference at the Vatican to mark the 3rd anniversary of Laudato
Sì last week. 

Quakers sometimes get hung up on the question – what should we do first? Should we
change the system or change ourselves? We are so complicit in this problem. Do we need
to give up our cars before we demand political action on climate change. Or should it be the
other way round?

Well, let’s do both. And let’s embrace the fact that social change is messy, imperfect and full
of contradictions.

To speak out for economic and social change, we require the integrity of making changes to
our lives. But we also live in a system, largely fuelled by fossil fuels, which is more-or-less
impossible to simply opt out of. If we demanded that political activists rid themselves of any carbon footprint, the climate change movement would be in a very bad way. If we don’t
change our own lives at all, how can we show politicians what’s possible, and give them a
sense of what changes people at the grassroots are willing to make in their lives?

As Quakers, we do know that the scale and nature of the changes we require, demands bold
action from government. And that for governments to take action for the planet, civil
society must demand it. When I met the minister responsible for climate change last year,
in the aptly titled Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, we talked a lot
about where the leadership for change should come from. Should it come from the
grassroots? Or should it come from government? There is certainly a role for civil society in showing a lead here, including faith communities which are experienced in helping
individuals to think about how they can live their lives. But there is also a clear role for
government in raising ambition, regulating and legislating for change.

Currently, the UK government subsidies the fossil fuel industry by approximately (fossil fuels subsidies are notoriously non-transparent and hard to calculate) £1.3 bn per year. We don’t need to give up our cars and switch our fridges off before we can say that this money should be redirected to the low-carbon economy.

The UK continues to back highly carbon intensive projects like airport expansion and
fracking. We needn’t be green gods and goddesses to recognise that the time has passed
when governments, seemingly completely disregard the climate impacts of these projects.

We’re hearing more ambition from government of late – but it’s not going to deliver
anything without a surge of grassroots activism. So here we are today, with work to do.

Due to immense grassroots pressure – we’re now in a better place than we have ever been in to hold government to account on climate change. In 2008 the UK government
committed to law the target of cutting emissions in line with limiting global warming to 2
degrees above pre-industrial levels. This included committing to national carbon budgets – so we could see how well the UK is doing (although the government has not always
published these on time).

Fast forward to 2015, and the UK upped its game again. It signed up to the Paris Agreement, which went further than the 2 degree target- it committed nations to limit warming to ‘well below’ 2 degrees and to ‘further pursue efforts towards 1.5 degrees. The 1.5 degree target is what some of world’s nations and communities most vulnerable to climate chaos are calling for, so for it to be at least partially committed-to is progress.

Then in April this year, the government announced that it is intending to update our climate laws to fully commit to this 1.5 degree target. The announcement was a quiet one, but it was really quite significant. We certainly weren’t expecting it. Yet as we know, its action, and the details that are important – and these paint a bit of a different picture.

Last year the government published its Clean Growth Strategy. It claimed to outline how the UK will achieve our international climate commitments.

It included some positive commitments. Significant investment in energy efficiency – the big
no-brainer. Ambition for low-emissions vehicles. Some more support for renewables.
BUT it admitted that these commitments as they stood would not achieve the cuts required
by a 2 degree target. Let alone a 1.5 degree target. Overall, despite all the promises nations
have made through the UN climate process, we are still heading for well over 2C. At the
moment, it’s going to be bye-bye Tuvalu, bye-bye Bangladesh, and even bye-bye large parts
of East Anglia.

At the same time as announcing its taking climate change seriously, it increased subsidies for north sea oil and gas, announced a cap on renewables subsidies, committed to a third
runway at Heathrow, and put in place new planning laws to make it easier for companies to start fracking.

All this shows that whilst we can support the ambition- and we must- we can’t leave it
there. It’s down to normal people to demand more serious commitment, to demand
detailed climate policy, and bold action.

We’re working with other Churches to show government that we as people of faith care
about the outcome, and we care about the detail. It’s not enough to make high level commitments. We see our job to hold them to account. 

This is all the more important with the UK’s departure from the EU.

The government are being very woolly on the detail of how EU directives will be replaced
with robust UK policy and investments. When I spoke to one of the Brexit ministers last
year, and asked her how the government intended to allow itself to be held to account once
the EU institutions which have often enforced change are no longer able to do it; the reply
was that she expected this role to be taken by civil society. So that means we need to be
vigilant, to scrutinise the government response, and to equip ourselves with the scientific
knowledge truly to hold them to account.

It’s easy to feel powerless. To sit back in despair and pray for deliverance. But for Quakers,
prayer means action. And whilst we may feel powerless, through the eyes of someone from
the global South we look powerful beyond measure. We have the voice, the money, the
freedom of speech, the democratic structures and the access to government to make
ourselves heard. And we must do so.

Here are some examples of what Quakers have been doing:

Firstly, on fracking. Given that to achieve 1.5C we have to leave almost all remaining fossil
fuels in the ground, so it makes no sense to be looking for new ways to extract them, at the
three centres of fracking resistance – Preston New Road in Lancashire, Kirby Misperton in
North Yorkshire and Broadford Bridge –Quakers are getting really involved in local action.
Some are locking on at the gates; some are going to meet the council; some are giving
meeting space to local anti-fracking groups; some are going to make food for protesters. It’s really inspiring to see so many people thinking about how they can do something, in
whatever way, to support a struggle. And everyone can be part of such a movement, at
whatever level, and whatever gifts you bring.

Divestment from fossil fuels. Quakers nationally have divested, and many local groups are
doing so (if they even had money in fossil fuels in the first place). The only way fossil fuels
will be left in the ground is if the companies which invest in them become worthless. Much
as engagement with fossil fuel companies may be important, I think it’s naïve to believe that they will withdraw from extraction altogether, which is what they have to do for 1.5C. And how could we possibly continue to profit morally from companies which are responsible for the degradation of our environment?

There are global opportunities for engagement coming up: the global climate conference in
San Francisco this September; the International Monetary Fund & World Bank meetings in
Bali in October; and of course the COP24 talks to be held in Katowice, Poland, this
December, which is when the common rulebook for implementing the Paris agreement will
be agreed. It’s absolutely crucial that our government goes into these meetings prepared to
raise aspiration and to show the type of lead a country as historically privileged as ours
needs to give. So we need to embolden them to do so.

One of the speakers at the Laudato Sì conference summed up the problem in 3 A’s –
Avarice, Arrogance & Apathy – to which Aggression was added. We have to remember that war has significant effects on the environment, and that between them war and climate change account for almost all of the current global migration crisis, with more displaced people than at any time in history. Avarice, Arrogance, Apathy and Aggression are all things that we can do something about, as people of faith. They can all be challenged, in our own behaviour and others’.

There’s a story Quakers like to tell about one of the early Quakers, William Penn, who went
on to found Pennsylvania. He was a statesman and diplomat, and habitually wore a sword.
When he wore it to Quaker meeting, not long after Quakers had renounced war, another
Quaker George Fox, told him ‘wear it as long as thou canst’. The next time they saw each
other, he had stopped wearing it, having worn it as long as he could.

Friends, our lifestyle and our collective inaction is an act of violence to our planet, its
peoples, and its delicate ecosystem on which all life and communities depend. Continue
with it as long as thou canst!”

Paul Parker, 2018.  This speech can be downloaded from the Quaker website at:

http://centralenglandquakers.org.uk/2018/07/19/future-for-all/


The other keynote speech at the conference, by Bishop David Atkinson, explained how in the burning of fossil fuels we have lost the biblical ‘triangle of relationship’ between God, the earth and humanity.  His speech can be downloaded from the same web page, where other activities at the conference are also described.  The conference included workshops on the Eco Church movement, a project of A Rocha UK – a charity committed to mobilising Christians to care for nature.  (See: https://ecochurch.arocha.org.uk/how-eco-church-works/); fossil-fuel divestment; interfaith experiences etc.

future-for-all (2)

Keynote Speakers at the conference: Bishop David Atkinson and Paul Parker


Leave a comment

Dr Mayer Hillman’s contribution to knowledge about climate change reality

Dr Mayer Hillman is an 86-year old social scientist and he has been contributing articles about carbon emissions, global warming and climate change for much of his life.  A recent article in The Guardian sets out his current stance.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

In an interview with Patrick Barkham, published on 26th April 2018, he points out that, because humans are so dependent on fossil fuels, there is not much longer for this planet to sustain life here.  He believes that climate change is in runaway mode and that “we are doomed” (to quote The Guardian headline).

0

Dr Hillman is a senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute and has contributed over the years to a number of policy decisions, one of which was a recommendation that homes should be energy-rated, finally adopted by Government in 2007.  He has also, for more than 40 years, challenged society’s preoccupation with economic growth.

He has been a keen cyclist, though cannot cycle at present for health reasons.  He is quoted in The Guardian article as saying:

“With doom ahead, making a case for cycling as the primary mode of transport is almost irrelevant,” he says. “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”

note-d-amour

Dr Hillman has done much work in the past on road safety and has written at length about society’s failure to challenge the supremacy of the car.

In 2016 the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was confirmed as beyond 400 parts per million, the highest level for at least three million years (when sea levels were up to 20m higher than now). Hillman is quoted as saying, “Concentrations can only drop if we emit no carbon dioxide whatsoever. “Even if the world went zero-carbon today that would not save us because we’ve gone past the point of no return.”

Most of Dr Hillman’s comments are in line with the theme of my book, so I recommend readers to look at The Guardian article to learn more about his predictions.


Leave a comment

Open Letter to Party Leaders on Climate Change and the UK Economy – from Scientists for Global Responsibility

Open letter sent to the eight political party leaders at the UK parliament on 13 June 2017:
Dear Madam/ Sir

In the wake of the inconclusive general election result and bearing in mind the forthcoming Brexit negotiations, we are writing to leaders of UK parliamentary parties to urge you to unite around a common cause – tackling climate change – as a way of helping to provide major economic, social and environmental benefits at this time of uncertainty. Not only does there continue to be there very strong scientific evidence on the urgency of this global threat, but measures to tackle it offer major opportunities to exploit science and technology to create jobs, tackle fuel poverty, reduce local air pollution and provide many other co-benefits for British society. The UK could capitalise on the renewed international commitment to tackling climate change in the wake of the ill-informed decision of President Trump to withdraw the USA from the Paris Agreement.

We have noted the widespread commitment to tackling climate change in the party manifestos. While there is some diversity in the approaches, there are many common factors. Hence, as a priority, we urge strong support for:

  • Home energy conservation programmes. These will both reduce carbon emissions and help to tackle fuel poverty, which is estimated to be responsible for nearly 8,000 UK deaths a year.1
  • Renewable energy projects – especially wind, solar, marine and biogas technologies and community-led projects. With costs for many of these falling rapidly, the potential economic and employment benefits are very large2 – and government opinion polling shows these technologies are especially popular.3
  • Energy storage technologies, including batteries, power-to-gas systems, and pumped hydro storage. Many of these technologies are already rapidly falling in cost, and they have high potential to complement the variable renewable energy sources.4 Electric vehicles will play a key role here, and their widespread adoption will help to reduce the number of UK deaths attributable to outdoor air pollution, currently estimated at 40,000 per year.5

We further recommend the following additional actions, which we strongly believe will complement those above:

  • End subsidies for fossil fuels, especially for unconventional sources like shale gas. The growth of a large-scale shale gas industry in this country is likely to seriously undermine Britain’s climate targets, as the Committee on Climate Change has warned.6 Furthermore, the technique of hydraulic fracturing (or ‘fracking’) is not popular with the British public,7 partly as it creates significant risks for the local environment.
  • End new commitments to nuclear power stations. These create unique and unresolved economic, security, environmental and safety risks.

Finally, we urge you to use any political influence you have in the USA to try to convince President Trump that climate change is a serious threat to his country as well as the world, and that his government needs to change course. Indeed, his failure to support cleaner industries in his own country is very likely to have a negative impact on the economy there.

We would be interested to hear your thoughts on our recommendations.

 

Your sincerely

Dr Stuart Parkinson

Executive Director

Dr Philip Webber

Chair

 

References

1. Energy Bill Revolution (2015). Fuel poverty. http://www.energybillrevolution.org/fuel-poverty/

2. REN21 (2017). Renewables 2017 Global Status Report. http://www.ren21.net/gsr-2017/

3. BEIS (2017). Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-attitudes-tracking-survey

4. Goodall C (2016). The Switch: How solar, storage and new tech means cheap power for all. Profile Books.

5. Royal College of Physicians et al (2016). Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/every-breath-we-take-lifelong-impact-air-pollution

6. Committee on Climate Change (2016). The compatibility of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the UK’s carbon budgets. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/onshore-petroleum-the-compatibility-of-uk-onshore-petroleum-with-meeting-carbon-budgets/

7. As note 3.

 http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2989043/open_letter_to_party_leaders_on_climate_change_and_the_uk_economy.html


Leave a comment

Labour’s Manifesto on Sustainable Energy

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Labour’s 2017 energy policy is built on three simple principles:

  • To ensure security of energy supply and ‘keep the lights on’.
  • To ensure energy costs are affordable for consumers and businesses.
  • To ensure we meet our climate change targets and transition to a low-carbon economy.

The UK energy system is outdated, expensive and polluting. Privatisation has failed to deliver an energy system that delivers for people, businesses or our environment.

One in ten households are in fuel poverty, yet the Competition Markets Authority found customers are overcharged an enormous £2 billion every year.

Labour understands that many people don’t have time to shop around, they just want reliable and affordable energy. So the next Labour Government will:

  • Introduce an immediate emergency price cap to ensure that the average dual-fuel
  • household energy bill remains below £1,000 per year, while we transition to a fairer system for bill payers.
  • Take energy back into public ownership to deliver renewable energy, affordability for consumers, and democratic control. We will do this in the following stages:
    • Regaining control of energy supply networks through the alteration of the National and Regional Network Operator license conditions.
    • Supporting the creation of publicly owned, locally accountable energy companies and co-operatives to rival existing private energy suppliers, with at least one in every region.
    • Legislating to permit publicly owned local companies to purchase the regional grid infrastructure, and to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time.

Labour will insulate four million homes as an infrastructure priority to help those who suffer in cold homes each winter. This will cut emissions, improve health, save on bills, and reduce fuel poverty and winter deaths.

Homeowners will be offered interest- free loans to improve their property. For renters, Labour will improve on existing Landlord Energy Efficiency regulations and re-establish the Landlord Energy Saving Allowance to encourage the uptake of efficiency measures.

Labour will ban fracking because it would lock us into an energy infrastructure based on fossil fuels, long after the point in 2030 when the Committee on Climate Change says gas in the UK must sharply decline.

Emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage will help to smooth the transition to cleaner fuels and to protect existing jobs as part of the future energy mix. To safeguard the offshore oil and gas industry, we will provide a strategy focused on protecting vital North Sea assets, and the jobs and skills that depend on them.

We are committed to renewable energy projects, including tidal lagoons, which can help create manufacturing and energy jobs as well as contributing to climate- change commitments.

The UK has the world’s oldest nuclear industry, and nuclear will continue to be part of the UK energy supply. We will support further nuclear projects and protect nuclear workers’ jobs and pensions. There are considerable opportunities for nuclear power and decommissioning both internationally and domestically.

Building a clean economy of the future is the most important thing we must do for our children, our grandchildren and future generations. Yet recent years have seen a failure to progress towards our targets. A Labour government will put us back on track to meet the targets in the Climate Change Act and the Paris Agreement.

The low-carbon economy is one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors, creating jobs and providing investment across each region. It employed an estimated 447,000 employees in the UK in 2015 and saw over £77 billion in turnover. With backing from a Labour government, these sectors can secure crucial shares of global export markets.

Currently, the UK buys and sells energy tariff free from Europe, an arrangement which saves families and businesses money, and helps balance the power grid. As part of the Brexit negotiations, Labour will prioritise maintaining access to the internal energy market. Labour will also retain access to Euratom, to allow continued trade of fissile material, with access and collaboration over research vital to our nuclear industry.


Also, it may be of interest to readers to view a youtube video made last September:
Also, a longer 11-page paper, Protecting our Planet, written by Jeremy Corbyn in August 2015, can be found at: