9 February 2012

The economist who coined the term "quantitative easing" in the 1990s, and Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas, who is a member of the Green New Deal Group, are calling for a billion pound programme of "Green Quantitative Easing".

This investment would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and set the UK on course for a transition to a genuinely green economy.

In the report launched today, Professor Richard Werner, Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton, says that Green QE can reach parts of the economy that traditional QE has failed to - making a real difference in terms of jobs and the environment. 

Professor Werner said:

"The Bank of England announced today a further round of Quantitative Easing to follow the £200 billion of QE1 announced in 2009 and the £75 billion of QE2 announced last year.

"This staggering £275 billion largely ended up with the banks in the futile hope that it would result in a substantial increase in UK lending to business. Instead it was used to rebuild their balance sheets and invest in commodity speculation.

"To ensure that this does not happen again, we need a different kind of QE, to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment-as well as creating thousands of new jobs."

Caroline, who welcomed the report, said:

"It is understandably difficult for people to get their head around the idea that the Bank of England could magic up £50 billion of Green Quantitative Easing.

"Yet it has already e-printed £275 billion (around £4,000 for every man woman and child in the UK) in an effort to get increased borrowing to British business via giving the money to the banks.

"But this money has completely failed to reach small businesses in the real economy which urgently need support.

"The bankers have had their £275 billion chance. Now it's time for the Bank of England to help create jobs, stabilize the economy, and support the environment through a package of Green Quantitative Easing.

"I will be calling upon MPs of all parties to support these proposals, and urging my Parliamentary colleagues on the Treasury Select Committee to raise the issue of Green QE when they next question Sir Mervyn King."

The Green New Deal group has called for Green QE to initially spend up to £20 billion on fitting free solar PV for the occupants of the roughly 3 million south facing roofs, best suited to capture the maximum amount of energy.

Based on last year's figures when around 20,000 installation jobs were created putting PV on 150,000 dwellings, a million home a year programme would eventually create 140,000 jobs.

If that were to be extended to all the potential 9 million homes that could benefit from PV installation at a cost of up to £55 billion, then the employment growth would be much larger still.

The households involved would save up to £250 per annum in reduced electricity bills.

A further £16 billion of Green QE could be spent kick-starting the Government's Green Deal energy efficiency programme for homes.

The Government expects this to support at least 65,000 jobs in insulation and construction by 2015. Local authorities, many of whom are already involved in planning to make tens of thousands more local homes energy efficient, could access a QE Green Deal fund to initially finance such work.

Professor Werner continued:

"These are exceptional times and they call for exceptional action from the Bank of England.

"Mervyn King has expressed a desire to see QE help tackle "the most serious financial crisis at least since the 1930s if not ever."

"Another serious crisis is climate change and Green QE could not only help address that, but through the huge number of jobs and business opportunities involved, it could also help tackle our financial crisis."

ENDS

The Government this week announced further reforms to the solar feed-in tariff scheme.

Responding to the announcement by DECC Minister Greg Barker, Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas said:

"This latest shock for solar shows clearly that the new energy secretary has fallen at the first hurdle. After the Government's shambolic handling of solar policy over the past few months, Ed Davey should have made it a priority to delay this policy change and get it right.

"But today's announcement once again leaves the industry reeling, with tariff cuts going far deeper than the falling costs of installation warrant.

"While the Government sounds ambitious in its aims, the actual policy looks weak - with Ministers giving themselves the option of changing the tariff every two months.

"The one thing that business needs is certainty, yet these Government cuts are being made so fast that it is destabilising the industry. The proposed tariff cuts also go deeper than the falling costs of installation should warrant.

"While it's positive that the Government has agreed to drop the qualifying band rate for homes to band D, the announcement today is bad news for the solar companies who have invested this year, and means continuing uncertainty for those want to benefit from this clean renewable energy."

ENDS

In recent months there has been growing concern at the increasingly unaffordable cost of energy as a result of stagnating incomes, volatile wholesale prices and over-charging by energy companies - average household bills for gas and electric are now in excess of £1200 per annum.

In October, the regulator OFGEM revealed that energy suppliers had increased their profits margins by 733%, from £15 to £125 per household.

At the same time the latest data for the UK estimates that at least 5.5m households are now in fuel poverty.

The campaign is launched in anticipation of big energy profits announced later this month. In the first 6 months of 2011 alone the big six energy companies made at least £3.5bn in profit.

Co-ordinated by the centre-left pressure group Compass, the new campaign for affordable energy  ‘END THE BIG 6 ENERGY FIX' has called on the Government to:

1) Impose a levy on the Big Six, with funds raised ring-fenced to help people with their energy costs, prioritising those living in fuel poverty, by making homes more energy efficient.

2) Give the regulator new powers to cap prices and eliminate excess profit.

3) Launch an independent public inquiry into the Big Six so that everyone knows the measures needed to create an energy market that serves the people before profit.

Tens of thousand of people are expected to sign a new petition athttp://www.endthebigsixenergyfix.org.uk/ in the coming weeks, piling pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce plans for a levy in the Budget in March.

The campaign will be targeting millions of people across Britain through using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:  

"It is completely outrageous that the Big Six energy giants are able to rake in eye-watering profits as people up and down the country are forced to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families.

"These companies are delivering a crucial public service, and it is now the Government's responsibility to hold them to account for failing to provide anything close to a fair deal for consumers.

"We need to see OFGEM taking a far stronger role in regulating this out-of-control industry so that we can end the Big 6 Energy fix once and for all."

Gavin Hayes, General Secretary of Compass said:

"The big energy companies continue to make massive profits whilst millions of Britons struggle to make ends meet and are driven into fuel poverty - this cannot be right.

"If the Government can impose a levy on the big oil companies to help motorists with their fuel bills, then why not impose a similar levy on big energy companies to help people with their energy bills?

"It's time to End the Big Six Energy Fix. I urge people to sign the petition."

Andy Atkins, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth said:

"It's scandalous that the major energy firms are netting billions of pounds in profit while over five million households in Britain struggle to heat their homes.

"The Big Six have kept us hooked on costly fossil fuels for too long - we're delighted that Compass supports a public inquiry into their stranglehold on the market.

"A levy on the Big Six could help the poorest families afford insulation, but we also need to shift to clean energy like wind and solar power if we are going to stabilise fuel bills long-term".

GREEN EURO-MP CALLS ON COUNCIL TO RAISE COSTS FOR LIVE ANIMAL EXPORTERS AT RAMSGATE PORT

Keith Taylor, the Green MEP for Kent and the South East, has called on Thanet Council to raise the fee for boats using Ramsgate port to export live animals. Keith has written to the local authority asking them to increase the fee for exporting animals so that it reflects the additional costs arising from the extra police, staff and security required for this controversial trade.

Keith said, "At the moment these export costs are being covered by the public purse, despite widespread opposition locally and nationally to the practice of exporting live animals. This means that the public are effectively subsidising an activity that's inhumane, unnecessary and unjustifiable. I hope that Thanet council will endorse a levy that reflects the true costs of this horrific industry".

Keith recently detailed his concerns about live exports at a public meeting in Broadstairs, along with local MPs and campaigners. He has previously visited Ramsgate to meet with campaigners who are demanding an end to live animal exports from the port. Keith has written to James Paice MP, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, to ask whether DEFRA is adequately monitoring EU transportation standards and whether these standards are being met at Ramsgate port.

At an EU level Keith has written to European Commissioner Dalli to raise his concerns over live animal exports and to ask him to support an eight hour limit on animal transport times, as a step to banning all live exports.

Keith is urging his constituents in the South East to support a Compassion in World Farming campaign (1) which encourages people to write to Thanet Council requesting an increase in the export levy and an end to the inhumane live animal export trade. The charity has recently worked with actress Joanna Lumley to launch a campaign to end live animal exports in 2012.

ENDS

Notes to Editors

 1. To support the Compassion in World Farming campaign, visit http://action.ciwf.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=119&ea.campaign.id=13152

For more information on the work of Keith Taylor MEP, please contact Alice Taylor on 0207 250 8418 or keithpress@greenmeps.org.uk

Brighton and Hove Greens lead the way in refusing to be bullied into freezing council tax

Eric Pickle's council tax freeze is ill thought out and morally contemptible say Brighton and Hove Greens as 16 more councils refuse to sign upto Tory "tax gimmick"

Eric Pickles is obviously starting to sweat as it' clear that his "Tory Tax Gimmick" has not been welcomed with the open arms he was expecting. Bored of asking nicely (!) he is now telling councils that they have a "moral duty" to adopt the council tax freeze. A moral duty? An interesting stance from Communities secretary Eric Pickles who has been accused of attempting to legalise planning decisions made on the basis of financial reward by The Campaign to Protect Rural England.

 And let us not forget this is the Pickles that spent nearly £600,000 on his interim finance chief's 16 month stint.

 And the very same Eric Pickles who attended a "private" dinner at The Savoy hosted by the lobbying firm Bell Pottinger. It was also attended by Brandon O'Reilly, chief executive of Farnborough airport, who at the time was awaiting a decision by Pickles's Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department for Transport (DfT) on an application to almost double the capacity of the airport. How very neutral.

Brighton and Hove Green Council ask: How is it a moral duty for councils to plunge their residents into debt and endanger frontline services just so the Tories can look good in the short term?

"Residents expect us to use our Green values to fight for the fairest possible settlement in the face of unprecedented cuts from central government. The tax freeze grant is another attack, a wolf in sheep's clothing, which we oppose. Over 2 years it would cost us £5.4m, and more over the longer term."

 Councillor Jason Kitcat

 If Eric Pickles is going to offer a council tax freeze he must do so with the proper funding otherwise it is just empty rhetoric.

Capitalism should exist for the good of the people, not the other way around

Cameron's words about the need for "responsible" capitalism smack of political positioning rather than a genuine commitment to changing the way our economy works.

The Tories are actively encouraging people to be enterprising and set up their own businesses, while knowing full well the system is tilted away from them and firmly towards big business and corporations. Encouraging people who have recently lost their jobs to set up in business may result in disappointment in a situation where market power is so unfairly shared. The role of government is to challenge the dominance of corporate business rather than simplifying the co-operative legislation.

This is another example of the Conservatives trying to have their cake and eat it, as we have seen in the numerous examples of Conservative politicians condemning the closure of hospitals in their constituencies, while voting for measures nationally that will make this inevitable. Similarly the Localisation Bill suggests allowing local people a greater say in how their high streets are redeveloped, yet on the other hand failing to give them power of funding.

The Green Party's policy of banding corporation tax so that larger companies pay more than small ones would shift the balance of power towards the small businesses that are most effective at creating jobs. Our plans for community banks would make available the finance that has virtually disappeared since the advent of the credit crisis.  And a Green Chancellor would actively encourage cooperatives by setting up a cooperative development fund. Cameron should reassess the current state of the economy before he brands their idea of capitalism ‘moral'. The Conservatives are kidding no-one. As Green Party policies demonstrate, finding the solutions to the problem of irresponsible capitalism is not difficult, unless you have to keep your friends in the city and the corporate boardrooms happy.

Green Party: Cuts to Disability Living Allowance will push carers to the edge

A proposed reform of the Disability Living Allowance has come under fire from campaigners who claim it could put more people into poverty, with a Lords vote taking place tonight. Disabilities minister Maria Miller claims that as much as £600m is being overpaid every year and has proposed replacing the DLA with a Personal Independent Plan that regularly assesses its claimants[1].

However, Campaigners want the plans to be postponed until the government can provide a suitable medical assessment, which is not yet ready.  Furthermore, many disabled people have expressed concerns that the government is not currently able to provide an assessment which will be fair to them[2].

Scrutiny of the reform also suggests the government is arbitrarily setting savings targets, in this case a 20% reduction in DLA, to drive down the welfare bill and budget deficit[3]. A sweeping cut of 20% will inevitably disadvantage certain groups of vulnerable people that rely on this income support.

"The current system where a private company has been contracted to simply reduce benefits rather that to provide object assessments looks set to be replaced by an even worse system, if that were even possible.

"Benefit fraud is a tiny problem when compared to the problems of tax avoidance. Sadly the bullies in government stick up for their friends in the city rather than those people who really need support."

Stuart Jeffery, Green Party Policy Co-ordinator

Despite this, the fact that some people have remained on DLA after their condition improves is certainly cause for concern and needs to be looked into. However, the positives are outweighed by the negative consequences for many of those living with disabilities.

The new reforms once again show that the government is more concerned with cutting costs than helping the least vulnerable in society.   

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/17/disibility-living-allowance-overpayment?newsfeed=true

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16588521

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/17/disibility-living-allowance-overpayment?newsfeed=true

Message to Unite: Green Party are the alternative

17 January 2012

The Green Party urges unions to back the positive Green alternative.

The Guardian article by Len McCluskey, General Secretary of the trade union Unite, has reaffirmed Labour's failure to stand up for ordinary people. Labour's biggest financial supporter has publicly acknowledged their party's abject failure to oppose neoliberal austerity.

All three main parties now seek to protect the vested interests of deregulated financial capitalism - and in doing so they endorse an economic model that squeezes the poorest in society to sustain their broken system.

The public sector pay freeze will strip £2,600 off the wages of a teaching assistant. Pension reforms will see the average pension for a female public sector worker slashed to just £4,000. And cuts to education force students to pay £9000 a year, placing an entire generation in systemic debt.

Opposition to unfair and economically illiterate austerity must now unite around a Green New Deal for Britain. Green Quantitative Easing is needed to act as a direct stimulus to fund the jobs that create long term assets in the real economy. The UK needs a plan to reverse the unemployment that is driving up the welfare bill, and which instead gets people back into work and paying taxes.  

The Green Party calls on Trade Unions to back the Green alternative that is now the only voice standing up against an economic system designed to place the tab for 2008 on the UK's public services.

Keith Taylor's Letter to The Guardian

Your report (13 January) of a packed village-hall meeting standing up to the chief executive and PR machine of the US multinational Cuadrilla over its plans to drill for gas clearly exposed the strength of feeling on this issue. The villagers are determined to oppose this oil and gas company's attempt to expand its dangerous fracking practice from Lancashire to the south of England.

There is growing evidence that fracking can cause a range of environmental problems. A recent study by the US Environmental Protection Agency reported evidence of pollution, finding a range of chemicals in the groundwater around shale gas wells in Wyoming. Last year in Lancashire a report to investigate minor earthquakes found it was "highly probable" that fracking in the Blackpool area by Cuadrilla was the cause. Mounting evidence about the negative impacts of shale gas extraction, along with the growing number of applications to drill in the UK, mean that now more than ever a thorough and independent investigation is needed into the possible effects on the environment and people's health. Until then the government should halt drilling operations.

In any case, shale oil will contribute little towards meeting our emissions targets. We should instead be investing in renewable energy, which is clean and safe. Other European countries are aware of the risks - France recently banned fracking. In the European parliament the Greens are questioning the European commission about whether this technique complies with EU regulations on water and chemicals, and I will be meeting constituents next week to support their campaign against fracking.
Keith Taylor MEP
Green, South East England

                                                                                                Constituency Office

                                                                                              Brighton BN1 1AL

The Letters Editor                                                               

The Guardian

Kings Place

90 York Way

London Ni 9GU

Dear Sir

In his interview with your paper on Saturday, Ed Balls effectively holds up a white flag and admits that Labour has given up any attempt to set out an alternative economic agenda (George Osborne's plan is failing but Labour cannot duck reality, 14 January).

His capitulation before the Tory led coalition's definition of economic credibility as meaning ever more fiscal austerity, and his jaw-dropping statement that "we are going to have to keep all these cuts" calls into question the very purpose of the Labour Party.

Moreover, the choice he poses between higher public sector pay or growing unemployment conveniently ignores the fact that many public sector workers are on very low incomes, and falsely suggests that we can't afford to fund both. It is investment in decently paid jobs that generates income, and thus the tax revenues to pay for credit or borrowed money, not the other way round.   

Instead of trying to outcompete the government in some kind of masochistic virility test to see who can threaten the greatest austerity, an opposition party worthy of the name would be making a far stronger case that austerity isn't working, and offering a genuine alternative.  

A combination of more progressive taxation, a crack down on tax evasion and avoidance and, crucially, Green quantitative easing to deliver investment directly in the new jobs and infrastructure the UK urgently needs to make the transition to a more sustainable economy, would do far more to challenge the Government than the Tory-lite policies set out by the Shadow Chancellor.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Lucas MP

Leader, Green Party

Coalition Government cuts to child tax credit result in yet more children thrown into poverty.

Shocking statistics provided by the Campaign to End Child Poverty show that nearly 60% of children living in poverty have at least one parent who works, compounding the belief that too many jobs in the UK are poorly paid.

Tower Hamlets has the highest percentage of children living in poverty in London (almost half) with other London boroughs including Islington, Camden and Hackney also having a high proportion of children living in poverty. This means that their family's income generally falls below 60% of the average income of 25%. 

The government appears again unable to deal with poverty levels in some of the most deprived areas of the country. The commitment of the government to help children in these areas will be brought into question as cuts are likely to make many families as much as £1,250 a year worse off by 2015. Britain continues to be socially segregated with the "life chances of millions of children damaged by poverty and inequality'' claims campaign executive director Alison Garnham. (1)

"Public sector cuts have taken away part of the capital's safety net for those struggling financially and increased the strain on families struggling to stay afloat. Many of the parents of these children are in work but don't earn enough to ensure a high standard of living." Says Jenny Jones, Green Party London Assembly Member

Notes to Editors:

1)      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16483257

The fleecing of British rail users

Figures show that British rail fares are drastically higher than the rest of Europe, with London and the South East suffering the most expensive prices. Statistics released by the Campaign for Better Transport show that the price of a 22 mile annual season ticket can cost up to £3,268 in London, while a similar journey in Italy will cost just £336.

Further analysis of season tickets across Europe show much lower rail fares in countries such as Spain, France and Germany. The next most expensive country in comparison to Britain is Holland, but still on average £1000 cheaper than prices here[1].  As for monthly and weekly season tickets Britain is again way ahead of fellow European countries in terms of price, although the cost is significantly reduced as season ticket length is shortened[2].

British commuters can expect further pain in 2012 with government officials planning on annual rises of RPI inflation plus 3% for January 2013 and January 2014.

Alan Francis, Green Party National Transport Spokesperson comments:

"The privatised railway costs more to operate and so fares are higher. The fare increases by the train companies are passed straight back to the government. The railways need to be brought back into public ownership so that we can have better services and lower fares".

Low income commuters will be hit hardest by the government's decision to cut the rail subsidy which forms part of a programme to cut across the board and attempt to reduce taxation. Some can even expect to pay up to 20% of their wages on daily travel.  However this will mean little to people across Britain who can pay over £10 a day for a return ticket to work and back[3]

1 http://fullfact.org/blog/UK_Europe_rail_fares_prices_comparisons-2927

[2] http://fullfact.org/blog/UK_Europe_rail_fares_prices_comparisons-2927

[3] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14416.aspx

"We want to make the UK the best place to start, finance and grow a business." - George Osborne, September 2011

.....(ahem just not for 99% of the population)

So much for George Osborne and David Cameron's soaring rhetoric expounding the virtues of the small business. Once again the gold plated 1% such as Goldman Sachs and Vodafone swan off into the sunset tax free while entrepreneurs struggle to fulfill a biased tax crackdown.

The proposed move by HMRC to inspect up to 20,000 firms from April to check if they can back up their tax returns with paperwork going back for a number of years is being heavily criticized not only for its hypocrisy but also allegedly undermining government pledges to cut red tape.

Mobile phone giant Vodafone settled a long-running dispute with the revenue by paying £1.25bn, but it is alleged that they should have paid nearly £6bn.

"Tax avoidance by big corporations is rife in this country, some estimates put it up to £100 billion each year. The thought of Cameron going after small companies that have few resources, while senior people in HMRC let corporations off with a slap on the wrist, is immoral.

 "The government must increase transparency in tax dealing, especially with international companies who are able to move their profits to avoid taxation. Cameron should be working on an international agreement for fair and transparent taxation of these international companies. Sadly, his loyalties lie with them rather than ordinary people."

Stuart Jeffrey, Green Party Policy Coordinator.

Should we expect any less from a government that hails Philip *Monaco Tax Haven* Green as one of its business advisers? Too scared to go after the real culprits it seems as though the HMRC is going after small businesses to meet its targets.

The Big Society has an elite membership; apply only if your company is worth billions of pounds and you plan to fiddle the country on your tax bill. Small business owners need not apply.

Radical thinktank report calls for institution of ‘guardians' for future generations

In a new report to be launched at the House of Commons on 10th January 2012, Green House think tank Chair Dr. Rupert Read will propose radical constitutional reform to Parliament in order to create strong ‘guardians' to protect future generations' basic needs. In order to actualise this, the ‘Guardians for future generations' report suggests creating a ‘super-jury', picked by chance (as juries are) from the population at large, charged with preserving the basic needs of future generations, to be placed above the upper house.

 The Guardians' central powers would be a veto over new legislation that would damage / compromise the basic needs of future people, and a right to force a review of existing legislation that is already damaging their basic needs.

Notes for Editors:

The ‘Guardians for future generations' report will be launched at 5pm [for 5.30]on January 10th 2012, in Committee Room 5, House of Commons. The meeting will be hosted by Dr. Caroline Lucas MP, Leader of the Green Party, and will also be addressed by Jon Cruddas MP of Labour and by Government Minister Norman Baker MP. Representatives of the ‘Alliance for future generations' and the ‘Intergenerational Foundation' will also be on hand to offer backing to the issuing of the report.

Cameras and media welcome to attend.

The guardians report can be purchased here: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/guardians-of-the-future/18743272 . By Jan. 10, it will be available for free download online at the Green House website. Free copies will be available at the launch at the Commons.

Further information about Green House think tank can be found at http://www.greenhousethinktank.org

For further details or enquiries CONTACT Rupert Read (Green House Chair and report author) on 01603 219294 / 07946 459066 or Lucie Boase (Green House media Intern) at lucieboase@gmail.com.

Summary of report findings:

 ‘Democracy' means ‘government by the people'; but who are ‘the people'?

Society exists over time and decisions taken today can have significant consequences for people yet to be born. This report argues that the interests of future generations should be formally represented within our existing parliamentary democracy. In other words: Future people should be included among ‘the people'.

Building on the precedent of Hungary's innovative office of Ombudsman for Future Generations, the report proposes the creation of a new legislative structure - Guardians of Future Generations. The members of this body would be selected by sortition, as is current practice for jury service, in order to ensure independence from present-day party political interests.

The Guardians would have a power of veto over legislation that was likely to have substantial negative effects for society in the future, and perhaps also the right to review major administrative decisions which substantially affected future people and the power to initiate legislation to preserve the basic needs and interests of future people.

[The report argues that two facts make the proposal especially timely; first, the government's intention to become ‘the greenest government ever', contrasted with its closure of institutions designed to maintain our ecosystems for the future; second, the current process of radical constitutional reform (most notably, potential democratisation of the House of Lords).]

__________________________________________________________________________

‘Green House' was launched 21 July 2011 by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. Green House's Advisory Board includes former Labour Environment Minister Michael Meacher MP, environmentalist Sir Jonathan Porritt and Professor of Sustainable Development Tim Jackson. This will be Green House's first event to be held at the Commons.

Green Party condemns Canadian Government for having its eye on oil sand profit not wellbeing of the population.

Canada shows a profound lack of commitment to halting climate change.

Thanks to Canada's controversial withdrawal from Kyoto agreement the world is left struggling to avoid dangerous anthropogenic change to the climate. It seems the lure of profit from its booming oil sands sector (Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves) seemed too tempting to refuse.

At Durban Canada's Environment Minister Peter Kent did not hesitate to put profit before people and commit Canada to an isolationist position saying:

"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,"

However this view is nonsensical and factually incorrect.  Green Party Deputy Leader Adrian Ramsay condemns  this stance:

  "The world's richest countries, including Canada, must lead by example in taking practical steps to substantially reduce carbon emissions and avoid the worst effect of climate change. But this is also an opportunity for countries such as Canada and the UK to create more stable, more localised, low-carbon economies for the future. This is the long term thinking we need to address the climate crisis and the economic crisis at the same time - and avoid the huge financial, social and economic costs of runaway climate change."

GREEN MEP WARNS DURBAN AGREEMENT FALLS SHORT OF STEMMING CLIMATE CHANGE          

 The UN climate conference in Durban ended this morning, with an agreement on a process for concluding a new international legal agreement by 2015 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be implemented by 2020. 

 Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London, has welcomed the outcome and the constructive role played by the EU throughout the summit, but has warned that the accord falls short of what is necessary to prevent the global threats posed by climate change.

 Commenting on the outcome, Jean said: "While today's outcome has opened a door to a more effective international response to climate change, delaying comprehensive action until after 2020 is clearly insufficient, given the urgent measures scientists say are necessary to avoid climate change.

 "The EU has shown leadership in these negotiations, proactively building alliances within the UNFCCC, but its strategy of pegging the ambition of its own climate action to that of the rest of the world has ultimately fallen short.  The Kyoto Protocol remains in limbo and there is no guarantee of any further globally concerted climate action before 2020.

 "What has become clear at this summit is that it is simply not enough to rely on the UN process; we must also find other ways to spur action to respond to the growing emergency of the climate challenge.  The EU has talked a lot about the gap between pledged climate action and what is necessary to avoid climate change.  It must back these words with action and move to at least the 30 per cent envisaged greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020."

Notes to Editor

 Jean Lambert is one of eight MEPs representing London and one of two UK Green representatives in the European Parliament. Jean was first elected Green Party Member of the European Parliament for London in the 1999 European elections and was re-elected in 2004 and 2009.

09 December 2011

The Green Party has dismissed current solutions to the Euro-zone crisis as short-sighted, economically unsustainable and tantamount to an attack on European democracy.

Current solutions to the sovereign debt crisis all amount to the same thing: the poorest paying the bill.

Two solutions are currently being discussed; first, a €2trillion fund to bail out indebted countries so that they can pay their debts to banks; second, a multi billion euro project to recapitalise the banks so that indebted countries can be allowed to default without bankrupting banks.

The first solution asks European tax payers to underwrite a €2trillion fund. The second asks Europeans tax payers to underwrite banks. Essentially they are the same regressive solution, which hits the poorest hardest and does nothing to resolve a systemic crisis.

The current solution does nothing to prevent future unsustainable debt and subsequent future crisis. Instead, it undermines democracy by putting the survival of banks before the interests of society.

 The Green Party has come forward with an ambitious alternative to the neo-liberal, pro-corporate ideology that is governing economic policy in Paris, Berlin and the European Central Bank.

The alternative is twofold. First, banks must pay for themselves. The level of capital reserve must be raised and new ratios of fractional reserve banking need to introduced and enshrined in legislation. In this way, unsustainable sovereign debt will be paid for by the banking creditors who decided to make a profit by taking the risk; not the societies who stand to suffer.

This will mean that the financial sector will need to reduce its asset base which will hit lending to the real economy. To offset this, a massive Green Investment Bank (GIB) must be created to lend to sustainable businesses and industries, where the financial sector fails to do so.

Such a GIB could be funded by the same capital that is being discussed for the €2trillion bailout fund and the recapitalisation of European banks. In addition, the GIB could be funded by a higher banking levy and a financial transaction tax. The difference would be that tax payer's money would not be going into the financial black hole of hedge fund balance sheets. Instead, the money will be used to create real - tax payer owned - assets, in affordable homes, renewable energy and sustainable industry.

The Green Party calls on European governments to dismiss the needs of private financial institutions, provide millions of jobs and give tax payers control over their own economy. You might call it a democratic solution to the Euro-zone crisis.

Climate Change Summit: Will Durban Disappoint?

As the climate change conference in Durban, South Africa nears the end, UK environment experts said any substantial climate deals are unlikely since developed countries hesitated to commit to a legally-binding global agreement.

"At this stage, things do not look like they will come to a positive conclusion," Matthew McKinnon, head of the Climate Vulnerability Initiative at the humanitarian group DARA, said. "I would not be surprised if we come out of Durban without any real clarity."

Why Has Progress Not Been Achieved?

The inability of developed countries, such as the U.S. and Canada, to commit to any form of agreement at the summit has been "disappointing" to McKinnon.

He said he believes there is a problem in the U.S. and its approach to climate change, which requires a national response to the issue when the subject is not of interest to most American voters.

Other experts have also criticised the U.S. for not giving sufficient attention to the subject of climate change and focusing on the economy instead.

"The U.S. is very concerned about the economic situation, while climate change has always been pitched as a cost that they will have to deal with and as something that will threaten the American dream and lifestyle," McKinnon said.

Ironically, McKinnon said, while the U.S. emits the most carbon in the developed world, it is also the country that is most vulnerable to the impact of climate change among advanced major economies, due to it having a number of low-lying geographical areas and a high rate of severe weather conditions.

Meanwhile, Durban has been touted as a "last chance saloon" for negotiators to get together and hash out a legally-binding climate change agreement before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

As far as McKinnon is concerned, if no agreement is reached, then it was "definitely a missed opportunity" and there is no point in attempting to keep up the momentum about climate change at summits every year when there is no real intention of reaching an agreement.

Regarding the assumption that the Kyoto Protocol would have a second commitment period, he said: "It is disappointing to see countries like Japan and Canada falling out."

He also said it was unfair to demand nations like Brazil, China, and the EU make major emission cuts when corresponding developments are not taking place in countries like the U.S. and Canada.

Durban Climate Talks: A Wasted Opportunity?

Aubrey Meyer, director of the Global Commons Institute (CGI), an independent environmental campaign group, said negotiators at the climate change conference in Durban are wasting time.

"They're absolutely wasting the time they've got..." Meyer said. "But the larger picture is that we are all collectively wasting time, because we continue to cause this problem rather than preventing it."

Meyer said the "guesswork approach" at the climate talks is simply accelerating the path to failure. "This is suicidal," he said in exasperation.

Meyer has called for an agreement that he termed "climate justice without vengeance". The Global Commons Institute conceived a contraction and convergence model as a proposed global framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. Researchers intend for the model, based on a simple mathematical formula, to form the basis of an international agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avoid dangerous climate change.

Meyer said he was doubtful that any positive progress or agreements would come out of Durban before Friday, but stressed that the need to adopt a second period of the Kyoto Protocol was "more urgent than ever".

An Urgent Need for Emphasis on Climate Change

Adrian Ramsay, deputy leader of the UK Green Party, said that while the talks in Durban have provided another opportunity for genuine progress on climate change, the political will is lacking.

Ramsay said he finds the approach of the U.S. and Canada "deeply disturbing" and believes that they have acted self-interestedly because they stand to profit enormously from excluding themselves from a legally-binding agreement that will ensure a reduction of carbon emissions.

"The fact is that we will all be at a major disadvantage if we don't act now and richer countries need to take the lead," Ramsay said, adding: "We also need a fair approach to the developing world."

At this stage, Ramsay said it was hard to predict whether the Durban talks will produce a positive outcome before Friday. "What's really important is that countries don't allow richer countries to hold everyone else to ransom," he said.

Typically, at climate change conferences, global leaders have shown commitment right up to the last moment, according to Ramsay. "I will always remain hopeful while there's still time left... It's so often that the agreements come at the end of the conferences, so let's not give up hope yet," he added.

More importantly, Ramsay said, there needs to be a greater emphasis on climate change and the urgency to act quickly. "We should have had a legally-binding agreement a year ago. We need global leaders to emphasise the urgency of the situation."

He said he was not going to accept the argument that global leaders are giving preference to one issue over another, such as the current focus on the dire economic situation in the world and fears over a double-dip recession.

"We need to work towards a solution for the future that reduces our reliance on fossil fuels... We could be tackling the economic problems at the same time by investing in renewable technology, which will be much more reliable in the long term."

If we do not take action on climate change, the devastating effects will be seen within the lifetimes of most people living today, Ramsay warned.

"Scientists have been warning us for decades and the urgency to tackle the climate threat is getting ever greater, yet some governments seem too unwilling to look beyond the next 12 months. Our future economy and future quality of life depends on drawing up a legally-binding treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out next year, and on action at a domestic level to take the practical steps needed."

The 17^th Conference of the Parties (COP17) climate change summits runs until Friday.

UK GOVERNMENT COULD FACE LEGAL ACTION OVER CUTS TO SOLAR FEED-IN-TARIFF, EUROPEAN COMMISSION CONFIRMS

The UK Government could eventually face legal action over its plans to more than halve solar subsidies, the European Commission has today confirmed.

In response to a Priority Question submitted by Green MEP for London, Jean Lambert {1}, the Commission states that legal proceedings will be taken if the Government's proposal to drastically slash the solar Feed-in-Tariff threatens progress towards the UK's binding EU target on renewable energy {2}.

Under the Renewable Energy Directive 2009, the UK is required to source 15 per cent of energy needs from renewable sources, including biomass, hydro, wind and solar power by 2020.  The Government's plans to cut the tariff will see payments for electricity generated by solar energy fall from 43p per Kwh to just 21p - a move which will dramatically undermine solar pv installation and capacity and weaken the UK's ability to meet its 2020 target.

In its response, the Commission also notes that any changes made to support schemes for renewable energy must be done so in a way which does not destabilise the renewable energy industry.  Yet, across the UK over 25,000 people are employed in the solar industry with thousands now facing an uncertain future.  In recent days, leading solar firm Carillion has confirmed that some 4,500 jobs are now under threat due to the planned cut to the subsidy.

Commenting on the Commission's response, Jean said: "At the same time as world leaders meet in Durban to negotiate a new binding agreement on climate change, the UK Government is attempting to rush through foolhardy and damaging changes to an incredibly successful renewable energy scheme which has resulted in 100,000 solar installations, the creation of over 22,000 jobs and almost 4,000 new businesses.  Rashly withdrawing support from this burgeoning industry will be disastrous for both our economy and the environment.  

"Under the Commission's ruling, the UK is prevented from making amendments to support schemes which could jeopardise the renewables industry, yet sudden, drastic cuts to the tariff will strip away investor confidence, reduce the market for solar companies across the country, and threaten jobs.  In the current climate, with unemployment reaching record levels, we can ill afford further job losses which could potentially reach into the thousands. This would seem to be a risky move: "destabilising" the industry by anyone's definition. 

She continued: "It is the responsibility of the Government to take every possible step to boost, encourage and support green technologies as we look to move towards a more sustainable society, rather than penalise those that have thrived. The Government must now demonstrate that plans to slash the subsidy will not derail the UK from delivering 15 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020, or the Commission will have no choice but to initiate infringement proceedings."

Notes to Editor

1. Jean's Priority Question, submitted on the 8^th November, reads: "As part of the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC, the UK has a renewable energy target of 15% by 2020.  A Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) policy has been implemented as one key measure to deliver this target.  The UK Government is now planning to significantly reduce the solar pv FiT (1) rates from those reported in its National Renewable Energy Action Plan to the Commission.  There is concern that this change will undermine solar pv installation and capacity and thereby negatively impact upon the UK's ability to achieve the 15 per cent target.  Will the Commission assess the impact of this planned change upon the UK's capacity to make sufficient progress towards and meet the 15% target?  If this FiT revision or other weakened implementation policies threaten progress towards this target, what steps and proceedings will the Commission take?"

2. Answer given by Energy Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, on behalf of the European Commission:

The Commission is aware of the planned changes to the UK support for photovoltaic energy and has been in contact with the UK authorities on the matter.

Following very significant reductions in the production cost of photovoltaic panels, the level of support for photovoltaic energy has been cut in several Member States.

Whenever Member States revise their support for support schemes for renewable energy, they need to do so in a manner which does not destabilise the renewable energy industry or risk undermining their own plans to achieve their 2020 targets.  The UK is committed to reaching its target of 15% renewable energy by 2020 and to following the trajectory outlined in its national renewable energy action plan.

Should the UK or any Member State weaken policies in such a way that it would threaten progress towards their targets, the Commission would take action, launching legal proceedings if necessary.

Jean Lambert is one of eight MEPs representing London and one of two UK Green representatives in the European Parliament. Jean was first elected Green Party Member of the European Parliament for London in the 1999 European elections and was re-elected in 2004 and 2009.

Since her election to the constituency of Brighton Pavilion in 2010, the UK's only Green MP has made a significant impact through her work on a range of issues - from putting pressure on the Government to tackle fuel poverty and drop Trident, to campaigning for Parliamentary reform and fairer rail fares.

Lucas received the Political Studies Association award for ‘Influencing the Political Agenda 2011' from Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow at a packed ceremony in Westminster this week.

Caroline Lucas said:

"I am honoured and delighted to collect this award from the Political Studies Association - and appreciate the judges' recognition that having even one Green in Parliament can make a positive difference."

The panel of judges at the Political Studies Association said:

‘Caroline Lucas has made unprecedented steps forward in raising the profile of the Green Party. The achievement of winning a seat in Parliament under the First-Past-The-Post electoral system should not be underestimated.

"When considering these factors alongside her role in influencing the AV debate, we felt she was a worthy winner of the 2011 award for Influencing the Political Agenda."

------------------- 

ENDS

The Political Studies Association is the leading organisation in the UK linking academics in political science and current affairs, theorists and practitioners, policy-makers, journalists, researchers and students in higher education.

For information about the 2011 award winners, visit: http://www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/Awards2011.pdf

CONTACT:

Melissa Freeman

Senior Parliamentary Press Officer

Office of Caroline Lucas MP

Tel: 020 7219 0221

Mob: 07590 050565

Email: melissa.freeman@parliament.uk

Website: www.carolinelucas.com