Climate Change

Environmentguardian.co.uk's interaction manager rounds up this week's liveliest debates

Over the weekend John Vidal wrote that food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grab. His analysis told how African land tends to be cheaper: "Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale." Commenters deliberated over whether this was indeed a new form of colonialism, how it might feel to be forced from where you have always lived, whether Africans are worse off as paid employees or subsistence farmers, or whether this might actually present an opportunity for Africans to capitalise on globalisation.

Debate of the week

How food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grab

Huroner: What is wrong with large scale agriculture in Africa? It offers a route out of poverty for millions.

MorganaLeFay: This is modern day colonialism ... I think that we all know what we have to do to stop this. Boycott the big food giants, and shop locally wherever, whenever we have the option, physically and financially.

jemay: Too many on the left of a green hue (not to mention those on the right) give the impression that they're not particularly interested in Africans, but keeping Africa as some sort of permanent backwater to better protect the flora and fauna for their edification and delight.

mwauragrace0: They don't make the Africans rich, instead they have made them even poorer and dependent on wages that can barely provide their basic needs.

janbe: It's always the same story: there's no balance of power between the investors and the local population. The investors have lawyers who will turn a land-grab into something remotely legal. The local population has no chance, because they cannot afford lawyers, cannot fight the security people, get no support from their government, because the officials are on the payroll ...

AndrewWorth: It looks like we're finally seeing Africa reaping the benefits that globalisation has delivered to many countries in Asia.

Made me smile

I accept George Monbiot's £100 solar PV bet

robertwiloughby: This is gambling - the Guardian needs a licence to host this sort of event.

Best comment

Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts

Valleyboi: Look at it this way: You have been dropped into a situation where your task is to tackle Jonah Lomu in his prime in order to survive. If he was walking slowly towards you from 10m away, you'd have a bit of time to sum up your options and formulate the best plan of attack to bring down the big man. Conversely, if he was already running at full steam you'd only just have time to sob for your mummy before most probably being steam-rolled. That's how I think of the situation we are putting nature in.

Elsewhere on the web

davidsouthafrican encourages us to join the Facebook group Fight overpopulation and environmental degradation.

ps

Please get your entries in for the Observer Ethical Awards by Friday 12 March). We are particularly keen on receiving more conservation nominations - please spread the word.

Mariam Cook
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Parents of American activist killed by Israeli bulldozer seven years ago take fight for justice to Haifa courtroom

An Israeli court today is to begin hearing a civil suit brought against the Israeli government over the death of Rachel Corrie, the US activist who was killed by an Israeli army bulldozer in Gaza seven years ago.

The case, brought in a Haifa court by her family, challenges the official Israeli version of events, in which the military said its troops were not to blame. The family hopes the case will be an opportunity to put on public record the events that led to their daughter's death in March 2003. If the Israeli state is found responsible, the family will press for at least $300,000 (£200,000) in damages.

Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother, said the family were "still searching for justice". "The brutal death of my daughter should never have happened. We believe the Israeli army must be held accountable for her unlawful killing," she said before the hearing.

Four key witnesses – three Britons and an American – who were at the scene in Rafah when Corrie was killed, are due to give evidence.

The family's lawyer, Hussein Abu Hussein, will argue that witness evidence shows the soldiers saw Corrie at the scene, with other activists, well before the incident and could have arrested her or removed her from the area before there was any risk of her being killed. He will also argue her death was either due to gross negligence by the Israeli authorities or was intentional.

Rachel's father, Craig, said: "After seven years, this process will, perhaps, yield some of the results we have been seeking in our quest for truth, accountability, and justice, in Rachel's case and beyond."

Corrie, who was born in Olympia, Washington, travelled to Gaza to act as a human shield at a moment of intense conflict between the Israeli military and the Palestinians. On the day she died, when she was just 23, she was dressed in a fluorescent orange vest and was trying to stop the demolition of a Palestinian home in Rafah. She was crushed under a military Caterpillar D9R bulldozer and died shortly afterwards.

A month after her death, the Israeli military said an investigation had determined its troops were not to blame and said the driver of the bulldozer had not seen her and did not intentionally run her over. Instead, it accused her and the group she was with, the International Solidarity Movement, of behaviour that was "illegal, irresponsible and dangerous".

The army report, obtained by the Guardian in April 2003, said she "was struck as she stood behind a mound of earth that was created by an engineering vehicle operating in the area and she was hidden from the view of the vehicle's operator who continued with his work. Corrie was struck by dirt and a slab of concrete resulting in her death."

But several witnesses offered a different version of events, saying the driver had seen her but continued anyway, hitting her with the bulldozer blade. She was severely injured and died shortly afterwards in an ambulance.

While Corrie was in the Palestinian territories, she wrote vividly about her experiences. Her diaries were later turned into a play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, which has toured internationally, including in Israel and the West Bank.

• Rachel Corrie
• Israel
• United States
• Activism

Rory McCarthy
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Doomsaying precludes the possibility of ingenious solutions – and indicates a morbid vanity that we must be the saviours

Isn't it welcome to have Ian McEwan as an advocate for a little optimism in the climate change debate? His hope, expressed in his new novel Solar, that humanity will prove ingenious enough to solve the problem through the skill of coming generations is a welcome change from those who portray our descendants as helpless victims of our "excess".

Their injunctions to "save the world for our children and grandchildren" fly in the face of history, which repeatedly shows how progress – from the wheel to the internet – transforms the world picture as time marches on. The doom brigade has its moments, such as the collapse of the classical world in Europe, the Black Death and the first world war, but they are exceptions to learn from. And we have learned.

Not to the extent of mastering clairvoyancy, however. Like miserabilism, a constant in human behaviour is the inability of Today to successfully imagine Tomorrow. The archive of prophecy and science fiction contains some good guesses, but in general the seers get it wrong. Which of my grandparents, addressing me in the 1950s, could possibly have foreseen today's IT? Which of my grandparents' grandparents had a notion of the bicycle or national parks?

This is true of scientists as much as of the more general type of wise person. Science is too often mistakenly treated in the way that history was by those 19th-century Germans who thought that one day the whole truth could be set down. Certainty is not absolute. Scientists are ambushed by novelty – see Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein – as often as the rest of us.

None of this is to argue against the risks of global warming or prudence in facing them. It is to warn against vanity, in the form of the exaggerated belief that it is all down to our generation: here, now, hurry, rush. It's also an appeal against pessimism, because of the limitations glumness places on the very potential which, odds-on, will prove the planet's salvation.

A writer in the Economist's most recent green supplement made this point neatly by questioning assumptions (rather reminiscent of Catholic dogma in Galileo's day) that spending the world's limited resources on Tomorrow rather than Today is necessarily morally right. The Economist's writer said: "Since future generations will probably be much richer than we are, it makes no more sense for us to sacrifice our wellbeing for them than it would to expect 18th-century peasants to go without gruel so we can buy more computers."

That is the sort of sally that deserves a wide hearing. If we stall Today's wonderful spread of international knowledge, travel and general prosperity, we risk a future like Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, where unknown Miltons remain mute and inglorious and village Darwins never get further than their shacks.

• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Climate change
• Ian McEwan

Martin Wainwright
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Should you be getting an e-reader for the planet's sake? I'd always thought not, but a new study has made me think again

The recent announcement that Foyles are soon to launch the bebook is further proof (as if any were needed) that the e-reader bandwagon is well and truly rolling. News that the New York Times book review will soon be available in e-reader format, meanwhile, also points the way to an increasingly interesting future for what we used to know as the "print industry".

The ability to buy something I wouldn't be able to get in a better format elsewhere (so long as the UK remains starved of the glory of the Sunday NYT delivery) even makes me think I might possibly find a use for an e-reader. Up until now, they've struck me as less pleasant than books, far more problematic in terms of copyright theft and – at least for personal use – rather decadent. They're a big computer that can only read books and so, I've always assumed, a waste of resources. But a bit of research has led me to question even that assumption.

I've only managed to find one report – on the Kindle (by The Cleantech Group) – but it backs up suggestions that so long as e-readers are used as book replacements rather than supplements, they soon start to pay back in carbon terms. The report states that a book uses up "approximately 7.46 kilograms of CO2 over its lifetime" and that the Kindle produces "roughly 168 kg" during its lifecycle, making it "a clear winner against the potential savings: 1,074 kg of CO2 if replacing three books a month for four years; and up to 26,098 kg of CO2 when used to the fullest capacity of the Kindle."

There are still problems. Crucially, the report states: "Amazon declined to provide information about its manufacturing process or carbon footprint" – so we're still really dealing with educated guesswork. I was also curious about whether the report has taken into account the role of books as "carbon sinks". My theory was that books last a long time before they are destroyed – often longer than their source trees ... And even when they aren't furnishing rooms they have a useful second life under the floor of motorways and similar.

When I contacted the author of the report, senior research analyst Emma Ritch, she said: "While some of the carbon stored in the forest will remain stored in paper, the majority will be emitted into the atmosphere. There is a significant amount of carbon stored in the soil, the roots of harvested trees, the usable saplings and other understory vegetation. These release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere when they decay, or when they are burned as energy sources for the pulp mill."

So it seems I'm – literally – barking up the wrong tree. Even wood sourced from sustainable forests uses a lot of energy (not to mention water) when it is being processed, and yet more when transported afterwards. (Books are heavy, after all.) Ritch also made the point that textbooks are often updated – and so become obsolete – every couple of years, showing another clear advantage to ebook readers. There are also plusses for academics ploughing through multiple journals and probably even for professional book reviewers.

However, I parted company with Ritch's positive view of e-readers when she suggested a further advantage: "the consumer who purchases an ebook often has the rights to use it on five or more devices, meaning multiple users within a household would not have to purchase multiple physical versions of a book." I'd actually view that as a problem, as far as fiction goes. Five or more devices probably gives the ebook a lifespan of little more than 10 years if my experience with such machines is anything to go by – and that's if you don't share it. A book (so long as it stays together) can be shared with hundreds of people over hundreds of years.

I also have concerns about the supply side. There's no information available about the energy required to run Amazon's "whispernet" and it's hard to work out the amount involved in supplying other books for download. The internet is too often thought of as a cost-free resource in carbon terms – but it's recently been suggested that Google alone produces as much as some nation states. Ritch suggested a good comparison would be that "a physical book purchased by a person driving to the bookstore creates twice the emissions of a book purchased online." But of course, that depends on someone driving rather than walking to the shop.

Nevertheless, I'm part-way convinced. There are clear advantages to using e-readers in schools and academe. At home, I'm less sure – especially when you factor in side-issues such as the toxicity of the heavy metals used in ebook readers and their batteries. I also hesitate because the devices are so new we still know little about how they're used.

Here, I'm hoping an informal survey here might shed more light. So tell me: if you own an e-reader, how often do you use it? (Have you for instance topped off the 22.5 books The Cleantech Group require to break even with traditional books in carbon terms?) Are you buying fewer books? How long does your battery last? Have you had to replace it? Do these carbon savings seem realistic to you? And has that influenced your decision to buy one?

I'd also be curious to know if other ebook agnostics are likely to be converted by the idea that they could be more environmentally friendly. I know it makes me waver. But then again, won't an iPad be more useful? Even if that does mean my reading could be interrupted by emails … And you can't throw the thing across the room when whatever you're reading gets too annoying …

• Ebooks
• Amazon.com
• Carbon emissions

Sam Jordison
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Deal with resources group Hargreaves Services would transform coal industry

UK Coal and resources group Hargreaves Services are weighing up a £350m merger which would transform the coal industry, the Guardian has learned.

UK Coal, the UK's last major coal producer, announced today that it had received a merger approach from an unnamed third party. The company is keen to reduce its reliance on its deep mines, which are expensive to maintain and have suffered production problems leading to large losses. UK Coal shares closed up more than 12% today.

It is understood that property and transport firm Peel Group, which owns 28% of UK Coal, is being kept fully informed of developments. The merger plan is still tentative and even if both sides proceed with the plan, they are understood to be some way from putting a formal agreement to shareholders. Neither company commented last night.

Hargreaves Services owns a deep mine in Maltby, South Yorkshire, which it bought from UK Coal, and is soon to start open cast mining. It also manufactures metallurgical coke and solid fuel such as briquettes used in barbecues. The company also runs a transport division and an industrial services division mainly handling fuel on behalf of power station owners in the UK. With a market value about a quarter more than UK Coal, it is likely that Hargreaves Services would be the senior partner in any merger.

UK Coal has embarked on an expensive project to upgrade its coal mines. But it has struggled in recent years because of the fall in coal prices following the economic slowdown and writedowns in its property portfolio. Its 43,000 acre portfolio is mainly located around disused collieries which have been earmarked for housing and light industrial redevelopment schemes and is a significant source of potential income. It reported losses of £80m in the first six months of last year, including a near £60m writedown in the value of its property portfolio. It also reported a rise in net debt to £191m, prompting urgent talks with its lenders.

In September UK Coal raised £100m via a rights issue to see it through the next couple of years. Next year, it should start to see the benefits of higher production rates from its mines and higher property values. The company has also struggled for some years with long term supply contracts which have forced it to sell coal below market rates to large customers such as Drax. The last of these contracts will expire next year.

UK Coal is Britain's largest producer of coal, supplying around 6% of the country's energy needs for electricity generation. It has four deep mines in operation, employing 3,100 people. Eight years ago it owned 13. It is looking to expand its surface mines, which produced around 1.7m tonnes of coal a year in 2008. They are cheaper to run but are opposed by many local communities.

• UK Coal
• Mining
• Mergers and acquisitions
• Coal
• Energy industry
• Energy

Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Chief executive Carolyn McCall explains why GMG is committed to making a difference

The development of Guardian Media Group's 'Power of 10' sustainability vision and strategy has been the culmination of a two-year process of change.

Each business within the group had already been developing its own individual sustainability programme but these were in some cases ad hoc, were not co-ordinated across the group and a lack of reporting made it difficult to measure progress.

There were areas of excellence such as the integrated sustainability drive at Guardian News & Media (GNM), publisher of the Guardian and Observer, and the environmental management of Trader Media Group's print sites. But within some businesses there had been limited progress in areas such as carbon footprinting or ethical procurement.

At group level, the concentration had been on improving the responsible purchasing of newsprint and magazine grade paper, a key part of our supply chain, but while sustainability-related issues were discussed at the board this was not part of the group's regular formal reporting.

A number of factors have helped to transform this situation. First and foremost was the commitment to improvement by GMG senior management. For example, GMG chief executive Carolyn McCall had championed sustainability issues while heading GNM. Having been promoted to the group role, she wanted the whole of GMG to adopt a similar approach.

This is not the first example of a parent company within the media sector being inspired by one of its businesses. Sky's innovative sustainability strategy was key in leveraging the development of a climate change strategy at News Corporation.

In a video to launch the Power of 10 McCall explains the reasons for GMG's commitment and describes how she was inspired by attending the Prince of Wales May Day Summit on climate change, after which GMG pledged to measure and report carbon emissions publicly, set reduction targets, encourage employees to reduce their carbon emissions at home and at work and encourage customers to take action on climate change.

In fact, most corporate responsibility executives describe the breakthrough moment in their own companies is when a senior director starts to really understand the implications of key issues such as climate change, resource degradation, species decline and human rights. A business can have the most effective corporate responsibility team, but their work is likely to remain on the periphery unless someone in authority takes a leadership position.

The second critical ingredient was committing specific resource to the project. Along with the creation of a sustainability champion on the GMG board, senior non-executive director John Bartle, came the appointment of one of the group's strategists to develop the programme, with the support of the sustainable development team at Guardian News & Media (GNM), one of five businesses within the GMG family.

After gaining the full support of GMG's board and sole shareholder, the Scott Trust, the group joined forces with the Carbon Trust to employ a consultancy to carry out a carbon management project, not only helping to measure the carbon footprint of the group but also advising on ways to reduce it.

While it was deemed important to start taking practical steps, there was also a recognition that the group needed to develop a broader vision and strategy to provide a cohesive framework within which each business could develolp its activity.

To help with this, it formed a partnership with Forum for the Future, the sustainable development organisation, headed by Jonathon Porritt. GNM had already worked successfully with Forum to develop its own sustainability vision and strategy.

There were four keys to the success of the vision and strategy development. One was setting the correct framing. Many companies still tend to act on sustainability either from a position of risk management or compliance or alternatively out of a sense of guilt or obligation.

But in similar fashion to the work at GNM, the framing at GMG was set around how sustainability could support the long-term success of the group. By putting it in a positive context, it changed the whole dynamic of the conversations, unleashing creative thinking rather than the limiting it to a feeling of obligation.

The second key was recognising that a generic one-size-fits-all approach to managing change would not work at GMG, given the broad and varied nature of the group.

This is in part due to the culture of the organisation but also because two of the largest businesses in the portfolio, Emap and Trader Media Group, are co-owned with the private equity company Apax.

The solution was to develop a matrix structure that sets minimum standards across the group but allows each business to become a centre of excellence in particular areas, as well as giving them the ability to translate the strategy to fit within its own cultural and business context. For example, what is right for Emap is not necessarily right for the Guardian.

Forum had already successfully developed a similar model with Balfour Beatty, the infrastructure services group, which also operated a devolved system of management for its various businesses.

Also critical was not to attempt a top down approach but to fully involve key directors and staff from all businesses in developing the matrix, ensuring the final strategy already had buy-in from the boards of all the businesses. The added advantage of this approach was that where issues were identified during the process, work started immediately on addressing them.

The fourth key was to recognise from the beginning that there is far more to sustainability than just climate change and to develop a vision that incorporated the social, environmental and economic impacts of the company.

While climate change is recognised in the vision as being of critical importance, the group also wanted to incorporate other areas such as community and promoting and developing products and services that support a more sustainable way of life.

GMG has given itself five years to meet its vision, but to ensure steady progress has developed a set of aims to be met by 2012 in each of 10 categories, which range from influencing audiences and customers and environmental management to procurement and employee engagement.

Each business within GMG has been putting in place effective governance structures and reports will go quarterly to the group board so that progress can be monitored.

As I have discussed in a recent blog, change in companies does not come only from management recognising the problems and developing plans for addressing them.

Also critical is to engage employees in the process, given that the thousands of small and large decisions they take every day have a major effect on any company's impacts. This is why a core part of the Power of 10 sustainability strategy is to engage staff in focusing on achieving the ambitious targets that have been set.

• Guardian Media Group
• Corporate social responsibility

Jo Confino
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Owner of Guardian and Observer to tackle 10 issues ranging from environmental management and ethical procurement to employee and community engagement

Guardian Media Group, the multimedia business whose diverse portfolio includes the Guardian and Observer, today launches an integrated sustainability vision and strategy to address issues ranging from climate change to ethical procurement.

The 'Power of 10' vision is based on the belief that the group, which also includes radio stations, magazines and business to business media, can have a multiplier effect by educating and influencing its millions of readers, web users, and listeners as well as working with its thousands of staff, suppliers and advertisers to work towards a more sustainable future.

GMG has committed to 10 areas of change, ranging from environmental management and ethical procurement to employee and community engagement.

The sustainability drive links in with the core values of GMG's sole shareholder, the Scott Trust, which were first laid down by the great Manchester Guardian editor C P Scott in a leader column celebrating the centenary of the paper in 1921: Honesty, integrity, courage, fairness and duty to our readers and communities.

The programme, which has been developed in partnership with Forum for the Future, the sustainable development organisation, is the culmination of a two-year process of change. David Bent, Forum's head of business strategies, said: "We've been impressed by Guardian Media Group. In a busy and difficult time for the business, senior executives have taken the time to develop and commit to an ambitious vision. The inheritance of the Scott values, the key brands and the trust structure means GMG is well positioned to be a leader in the media sector."

The Power of 10 vision states: "We commit to play our part as a leading media organisation in creating a fair society that lives within the means of our planet. Driven by our unique ownership structure and values, we will enable our audiences, customers, employees, advertisers and suppliers to build a more sustainable future.

"Sustainability has many interlinked strands but the dangers of climate change are so great immediate that we will pay particular attention to highlighting its hazards and exploring ways of combating it."

Given the diverse nature of the group, which includes the Guardian and Observer, GMG Radio, Emap, Trader Media Group (TMG) and GMG Property Services , the vision recognises that "while all our businesses share this common goal, we recognise that each has its own specific contribution to make."

This means that while common minimum targets have been set in each of the 10 areas over the next two years, each of the businesses will develop its own centres of excellence. For example, GMG Radio will direct its resources into employee engagement, working with its audience and customers and carbon management, including a commitment to reduce its carbon footprint by 5% in the first year.

TMG will be sharing the Power of 10 vision with all employees through informal 'town hall meetings' and by video. It will be overseen by a corporate social responsibility steering committee made up of five senior executives and an environmental committee made up of 30 employees from around the business.

Emap will be using the launch of the vision as a springboard for a broad employee engagement plan to help set a strategy and agree which priorities to focus on.

GMG recognises that as a media company, its biggest impact comes from its ability to inspire audiences and customers to live in a way that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

For example, the Guardian has been leading the charge on the reporting of the environment and social justice for the past two decades and over the past two years has been developing one of the world's most in-depth and popular environment sites. In February, for example, it doubled its page impressions to 7.9 million compared with the same period in 2009 and increased the number of unique users over the same period by 140% to 2.64m.

The Guardian also helped launch the 10:10 campaign, which has led to thousands of businesses, councils and individuals pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% in 2010.

GMG also recognises that if it encourages readers to change their behaviour, and seeks to influence suppliers and advertisers, then it must also lead the way in its own operations. For example, the Guardian only went ahead with the 10:10 campaign once it had committed to reducing its own carbon footprint by a tenth.

The vision states: "The passion we have for inspiring our audiences and customers will be matched by our commitment to operating our offices, print sites and digital platforms to high environmental standards, including minimising waste and maximising both efficiency and recycling.

"We will measure and publicly report on our carbon footprint and set challenging targets to lower our emissions."

• Guardian Media Group
• Corporate social responsibility
• Ethical business

Jo Confino
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

We commit to play our part as a leading media organisation in creating a fair society that lives within the means of our planet. Driven by our unique ownership structure and values – honesty, integrity, courage, fairness and duty to our readers and communities – we will enable our audiences, customers, employees, advertisers and suppliers to build a more sustainable future.

Sustainability has many interlinked strands but the dangers of climate change are so great and immediate that we will pay particular attention to highlighting its hazards and exploring ways of combating it.

While all our businesses share this common goal, we recognise that each has its own specific contribution to make.

Audiences and customers

2015 Vision

We will educate, influence and inspire our audiences and customers to live in a way that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Our businesses will be recognised as an authority on the implications and opportunities that sustainability presents and will also, wherever possible, give our audiences a platform to explore and debate these issues for themselves.

2012 Targets

• By 2012 each GMG product should clearly articulate how it will help audiences and customers understand climate change and other key sustainability issues, and what they can do to take action.

• This will include an action plan/timetable for how GMG intends to educate, influence and inspire audiences. It should also identify key groups that the particular product will seek to engage with. As a minimum, each product should encourage audiences to take personal action on climate change.

• By 2012 each GMG product, where required, should have the editorial resources to deliver the stated aims.

Governance

2015 Vision

Each of our businesses will have its own sustainability strategy and action plan and an effective governance structure to ensure it is implemented.

2012 Targets

• All businesses report to their board on sustainability progress against all parts of the GMG 2015 sustainability vision once a quarter and have a board member identified as sustainability champion.

• By 2012 the board of each business will have objectives focused on progress towards the sustainability vision. Where appropriate, these objectives will be cascaded down throughout the organisation.

• All businesses will commit to being represented at the GMG sustainability forum on a quarterly basis.

• On an annual basis, all businesses will disclose to key stakeholders (including staff) progress towards the 2015 GMG sustainability vision.

Products and services

2015 Vision

We will seek a competitive advantage through promoting and developing products and services that support a more sustainable way of life.

2012 Targets

• We will identify GMG businesses where there is an opportunity to build sustainability related revenues.

• From 2010 each relevant GMG business should have a strategic plan that seeks to grow their share of sustainability-related revenues. By 2012 each relevant business should be able to demonstrate progress against that plan.

• The strategic plan should include:

- A proper assessment of opportunities in all the markets that the business currently operates and potential new markets

- Financial and market share projections

- Defined objectives and targets/KPIs.

• From 2010 all relevant GMG products should have at least one initiative or service aimed specifically at either helping audiences to gain insight into sustainability issues or offering audiences more sustainable alternatives to existing products/services.

• Each relevant business should be able to report and track growth in revenue from this specific sector.

Advertising

2015 Vision

We will share our vision with key clients as well as encouraging advertising from organisations that are playing their part in creating a more sustainable future.

2012 Targets

• All GMG businesses, via the GMG Commercial Forum, should work towards developing a system for incentivising advertisers who are leading the way on sustainability.

• Each GMG business (either individually or collaboratively) should have met with key clients to share the sustainability vision and look for potential partnerships in bringing it to life.

Environmental management

2015 Vision

The passion we have for inspiring our audiences and customers will be matched by our commitment to operating our offices, print sites and digital platforms to high environmental standards, including minimising waste and maximising both efficiency and recycling.

2012 Targets

• All GMG print sites will be working together to share best practice and set targets for minimising waste, maximising both efficiency and recycling as well as limiting the use of hazardous chemicals.

• All relevant businesses will be meeting the targets set out in the GMG paper purchasing policy.

Carbon management

2015 Vision

We will measure and publicly report on our carbon footprint and set challenging targets to lower our emissions.

2012 Targets

• From April 2009 all businesses have committed to monthly monitoring and reporting to GMG of scope 1 and 2 energy, and waste greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across all facilities/sites in our estate and under their control. All businesses will also work towards monitoring and reporting on their travel emissions.

• From 2010 all paper products should be able to report the monthly carbon cost of print, paper and production.

• From a 2009/10 baseline to 2011/12, businesses will achieve at least a 10% reduction in scope 1 and 2 energy, travel and waste GHG emissions from across their operations.

• Each business will produce an action plan detailing how they will achieve this reduction. The action plan should prioritise the avoidance of emissions. Reduction of emissions by purchase of renewable energy and investment in offsetting will not count towards the 10% minimum target.

Procurement

2015 Vision

We will team up with our suppliers to minimise impacts along our value chain, sourcing more sustainable products and services where possible, with a particular emphasis on carbon reduction.

2012 Targets

• By 2012 each business should have built in a sustainability review within supplier assessment processes to understand and record risks and opportunities.

• By 2012 each business should have had discussions with all key suppliers to identify and realise opportunities for mutual benefit.

• By 2012 all relevant businesses will be signed up to a GMG-wide paper procurement strategy.

• By 2010 all key existing suppliers will have received a copy of our Sustainability Vision and all new suppliers will be given a copy.

Employee engagement

2015 Vision

We will give our employees information to increase their awareness of the impact of their actions on the planet both at work and home.

2012 Targets

• By 2012 each business will have communicated to its employees both the GMG sustainability vision and its own strategic plan for working towards that vision.

• By 2012 each business will have an ongoing internal communications plan for sharing its own and GMG-wide sustainability activity. This plan will celebrate successes and be aligned with the existing and unique visions within each business.

Embedding sustainability into the workplace

2015 Vision

Each of our employees will understand how to interpret our priorities on sustainability for their specific roles and have the support necessary to implement change. Successes will be celebrated and shared across the group.

2012 Targets

• By 2012 each business will be implementing a clear action plan to engage employees in achieving the business vision for sustainability. Each department will be required to work with its staff in understanding how sustainability relates to their specific roles and offer support to make improvements. New starter inductions will include training on sustainability.

• By 2012 each business will be able to demonstrate progress against this action plan by using existing frameworks such as staff surveys to measure engagement and change.

Community

2015 Vision

We will work in partnership with our local and business communities in ways that meet their environmental, economic and social needs and have positive effects for our businesses.

2012 Targets

• By 2010 each business will have reviewed its existing local and business community programmes and developed a register of all community engagement projects.

• The board of the business will receive a quarterly report on progress on these projects against a set of Key performance indicators

• By 2012 each business will have developed a forward plan for community programmes making

• Guardian Media Group
• Corporate social responsibility
• Ethical business

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The documentary-makers exposed an alleged whale-meat smuggling operation at the US sushi restaurant The Hump

The run-up to the Oscars are a heady time for nominees: a whirlwind of screenings, cocktails, celebrity encounters and, for the makers of this year's prize winning eco-documentary, secret meetings in the parking lot of a sushi restaurant with federal investigators.

In an action worthy of the eco-commandos of Greenpeace, the makers of The Cove, an Oscar-winning documentary on Japan's dolphin slaughter, helped break up an alleged whale meat smuggling operation at a Santa Monica sushi restaurant catering to "adventurous" eaters.

On offer at The Hump, aside from yellowtail tuna, live octopus and shrimp, and baby abalone, was what was said to be whale meat, despite a ban on the sale and possession of whales.

That went too far for Louie Psihoyos, the director of The Cove, who co-ordinated the sushi sting from the parking lot.

"These are endangered animals. They are protected species. It is one thing for the Japanese to be doing it in their own country, but I take it as a major affront that they are doing this on our shores," he told the Guardian. "When they are cut up in little hunks of sushi it's a tragedy."

A spokesman for the US attorney's office told the New York Times that the restaurant could be formally charged as early as this week. Anyone convicted could face prison or a fine of up to $20,000 (£13,340).

In the week before the Oscars, the crew from The Cove made two visits with police to the restaurant. Two women activists went inside and ordered while Psihoyos maintained audio surveillance outside.

Secretly filmed video from an earlier supper last October showed the two women ordering off the chef's special omakase menu, with a waitress bringing thick pink slices of what she said was whale meat.

The pair ate two slices of the meat, putting six others in a plastic bag so it could be sent for DNA testing. The samples were sent to an expert who established the slices were from a sei whale. The species is endangered but is still hunted in Japan under a controversial programme that allows the killing of up to 1,000 whales a year in the name of science.

The bust offered yet more positive buzz for The Cove after it took the Oscar for best documentary. The Cove is Psihoyos's first feature-length film though he says he has been doing undercover work for 20 years. It relied on remote-controlled cameras mounted in helicopters, helium balloons, and even fake rocks as well as night vision equipment to record the annual dolphin hunt in a small coastal village on Honshu island in Japan.

Fishermen, banging on the hulls of their boats to confuse the dolphins' sense of direction, head out to sea to trap the migrating shoals. They herd the dolphins back to shore, packing them into a small inlet as closely as sardines, and then stab them to death with long harpoons and clubs.

In the course of each fishing season, the fishermen kill 2,000 dolphins, selling the meat to local supermarkets for about $500 a dolphin. They can earn far more by taking somem dolphins alive and selling them to aquariums.

The film-makers have seen a surge of support for stopping the hunt since Oscar night when Psihoyos' collaborator, the former dolphin trainer and underwater stuntman Ric O'Barry, held a sign asking viewers to text in their support. The appeal led the Oscar Academy to cut off Psihoyo's acceptance speech for "activism".

Psihoyos is already at work on his next film about the widespread extinctions that will come about because of the changing chemistry of the oceans brought by global warming. The Cove is due to be released in Japan, where the government has responded coolly to the film's success. "There are different food traditions within Japan and around the world," an official statement said. "It is important to respect and understand regional food cultures, which are based on traditions with long histories."

• Oscars
• Whaling
• Food
• Wildlife
• Endangered species
• Animals
• Marine life
• Oceans
• Fishing
• United States
• Documentary

Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Seal meat at the parliamentary restaurant has angered anti-cull activists, but the debate needs to move beyond sloganeering

In a move that seems almost designed to raise the hackles of animal rights activists, the Canadian parliamentary restaurant has begun to offer seal meat as part of the menu. The decision is a not-so-subtle snub at the EU, which last year put an end to seal imports from Canada, due to the allegedly inhumane way that harp seals are killed each spring.

As the hunting of seals, and the protests against it, continue, the headway being made by either side of the debate seems to have come to rest. It looks like there are no grounds for compromise, and thus to the general population, it has been debased to simple sloganeering. That needs to change.

For its part, the Canadian government has done little to add any nuance to the discussion. Last spring, the governor general Michaelle Jean ate raw seal meat from a fresh carcass when she attended a community ceremony in Nunavut. As far as political statements go, it might have only been less subtle had she wiped her mouth with the Canadian flag.

Prior to the opening of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, the Canadian parliament voted unanimously to include sealskin as part of the official athlete's uniforms for the games. The Canadian Olympic team quickly opposed the vote, and the sealskin uniforms never materialised. However, the Canadian government was yet again guilty of an in-your-face move that seemed unnecessarily boorish. In retrospect, it was for the better. There were enough issues in the first days of the Olympics without the added public relations headache that sealskin would have brought to the event.

Animal rights groups have already labelled the menu selection in the parliamentary restaurant as another blind show of support for what they allege to be an archaic, inhumane hunt. No doubt that opposition will only grow louder – there are still two months left of the seal-hunting season.

The seal cull can be a rather brutal thing to see. Watching footage of a seal being bludgeoned to death is never pleasant, but animal rights activists are just as privy to imagery propaganda as the Canadian government, perennially offering the usual images of doe-eyed baby seals and bloody snow. Now, we're back at the annual competition for both sides to out-message each other, with neither offering much in the way of viable, economic solutions. Which means we've come to a rather immovable impasse on this debate.

There is arguably room for nuance in this discussion, but for the general public, it's very hard to tell where that might be. The current public line from the Canadian government seems to be as immovable a message as that from groups like Peta. And that's exactly the problem.

As much as voters enjoy a good show of industry support, the first move must come from the federal and provincial governments. The recent slew of pro-seal images have only inflamed the issue, and regressed it to a rather juvenile tit-for-tat argument. Last year, the International Fund for Animal Welfare claimed that 60% of Canadians were opposed to the seal cull (pdf). If that number is accurate, then it's up to the government to act. Even if those polled have a rather loose understanding of the subtleties of the local Newfoundland and Labrador economy, the fact remains that a majority oppose the cull.

Beyond that, the Canadian and Newfoundland and Labrador governments have the capability to offer solutions, even if they are gradual. They also have the responsibility to listen – either to activists or other international bodies like the EU. Animal rights organisations might be seen to only be pontificating, but what else can they do? If their grievances are justified, the solution doesn't seem to be a ramrod refusal to change on the part of Canadian legislators. In fact, it's essentially the exact opposite.

Canadians are most likely pleased that our government is showing support for local economies, but literally eating an activist issue for lunch won't help anyone. If anything, it makes the activists' position all the stronger, and makes the government look petty and heartless.

• Canada
• Animal welfare
• Marine life
• The meat industry

Colin Horgan
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The somewhat abstruse and legal-jargon-adorned world of internal European Union politics is likely to have a key role to play in two big forthcoming decisions concerning some of the most charismatic life in the world's oceans.

EU nations are supposed to adopt a common position on such issues, either by consensus or qualified majority voting, and then cast their collective 27 votes within international fora en masse.

On climate change, the process has not been without its hitches, with some countries such as Poland and Italy opposed, at times, to the more stringent policies that others such as the UK and Sweden wanted to pursue.

Matters at the last meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) came to a more clear-cut head over a possible trade ban on red and pink corals, which are harvested from the Mediterranean Sea by Italian fishermen and used to make jewellery.

That situation saw one EU country - Italy, naturally - fighting its corner against the remainder of the bloc's joint weight. Of course it lost, in the end - but the delay while deliberations went on took many days and many long evenings.

The next CITES meeting, which begins this coming weekend, sees a similar but much more complex situation emerging over Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Monaco last year proposed banning international trade in the beleaguered species. Most EU nations support the notion - not a permanent ban, but a suspension until stocks recover - but others don't.

It will come as no surprise to find that the nations having doubts are those with significant tuna fishing operations - Spain, France, Malta, Greece and Italy.

When it comes to deciding a common position, EU rules assign each member country a number of votes depending partly on the size of its population. So Germany, the UK, France and Italy each have 29 votes - then it ranges down through the 27 of Spain, the 14 of Romania and the seven of Denmark right down to Malta's three votes.

In order to adopt a position, it's necessary to have a simple majority of countries in favour or against a proposition, and to have at least 73% of the total votes.

A country finding itself on the losing side can also then demand verification that votes cast account for at least 62% of the total EU citizenry.

The German government has thoughtfully provided a calculator you can use to see whether motions meet the criteria for success.

And as you can see if you plug in the numbers, if Spain, France, Malta, Greece and Italy all vote against an international trade ban, there aren't enough votes in the house for it to become an EU position.

In that case, the bloc has to abstain.

You could argue that this would be a seriously odd position to adopt given that the trade ban was proposed by Monaco, which resides within western Europe, and is supported strongly by many EU members.

(Serious Europhiles will have noticed that Monaco is not officially an EU member, although most of the time its interests are obviously aligned with those of France.)

More pertinently, abstention would significantly alter the balance of power within CITES.

Motions need a two-thirds majority to pass, so the EU's 27 votes are a pretty major component of the voting bloc; there's also the issue that a number of developing countries tend to align themselves with the EU position.

This becomes much more significant within the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which may well vote at its meeting in June on a proposed 10-year plan that involves a whole raft of measures I flagged up a couple of weeks ago.

Eighty-eight countries are currently members of the IWC, and a three-quarters majority is needed to make a major change. So if the EU votes en bloc against anything, that alone will stop it going through.

The EU is split on the proposed 10-year plan, though final positions will depend on what numbers of whales Japan, Iceland and Norway eventually say they are prepared to hunt in the immediate future - numbers that, in true negotiating style, will probably not become clear until the final evening of the June meeting.

On the tuna issue, lobbyists for every interest group are of course working their socks off right now in an attempt to secure EU support.

It may hinge on what compensation packages governments are prepared to offer their fishermen in return for withdrawing from the water.

We shall see whether they succeed - an EU decision on whether to support the trade ban may emerge this week.

Keep the calculator page handy...

China and India formally endorse the last-minute climate agreement struck at the Copenhagen summit

China and India wrote to the UN's climate secretariat today agreeing to be "listed" as a parties to the Copenhagen accord, the last-minute agreement that emerged from the chaos of the UN's summit in Copenhagen.

The action falls short of full "association" and highlights the gulf between the US – the strongest backer of the accord – and the other key nations on how to deliver a global deal to combat climate change.

Since Copenhagen, there has been confusion over how a legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved. All observers, including the UN's top climate official, Yvo de Boer, are now clear that no such deal will be signed in 2010, with a meeting in South Africa in December 2011 now seen as the earliest date.

At the heart of the disagreement is whether a new global treaty, like the existing Kyoto protocol, must be agreed unanimously by all 192 members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and be a continuation of Kyoto, which enshrines bindings carbon cuts on industrialised nations but not on developing ones.

In a letter to de Boer, Trigg Valley, the director of the US office of global climate change, did move back from earlier suggestions that the US wanted to ditch the UN process, seen as cumbersome by some, and negotiate climate change in a smaller group like the G20 or Major Economies Forum. But he has proposed to set aside some of the existing UN texts, which had been laboriously negotiated over several years, and replace them with passages from the Copenhagen accord.

In the letter from India, Rajani Ranjan Rashmi, environment and forests minister, states baldly the unacceptability of this approach: "The accord is not a new track of negotiations or a template for outcomes."

China's submissions are also unequivocal. The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, strongly backs the UN process and its consensus-based approach to reaching agreement. "It is neither viable nor acceptable to start a new negotiation process outside the [UNFCCC] and the [Kyoto] protocol", he said.

The US now appears isolated as China, India and many other countries, firmly support the idea of continuing with the two existing UN negotiating tracks to try to achieve a consensus.

The battle of the texts was fought for much of last year with the US backed by Britain and the rest of Europe. Today, the European Commission's first formal statement since Copenhagen offered some support for the US: "The political guidance in the Copenhagen Accord – which was not formally adopted as a UN decision – needs to be integrated into the UN negotiating texts that contain the basis of the future global climate agreement."

But some rich country governments now accept privately that they had "crossed a red line" and failed to recognise that developing countries had not been prepared to abandon the Kyoto protocol without a new legal agreement in place to ensure developed countries reduced emissions.

"The US wants to appear to be leading the world on climate change but it is in a very, very difficult position," said Tom Burke, founder of the consultancy E3G, citing the difficulty President Obama faces in getting a climate change bill through a reluctant senate.

In an recent interview with the Guardian, Yvo de Boer,, played down talk of radical change to the way to the UN process demands unanimous decisions, which some, including Gordon Brown, blamed for a lack of progress in climate talks. He said a major stumbling block to an agreement remained mistrust between the developing and developed countries over the finance needed to help countries adapt to the impacts of global warming.

Rich countries had offered "recycled contributions from the past" he said, while the build-up to the Copenhagen summit had focused too much on the issue of binding emission reduction targets. De Boer has announced he will step down from the UNFCCC in July. Yesterday, the South African tourism minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, was nominated by President Jacob Zuma as a candidate. But other candidates, including from India and possibly Indonesia, are expected to make the private shortlist from which the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, will make his choice.

• Copenhagen climate change conference 2009
• Climate change
• Kyoto protocol
• United Nations
• India
• China

John VidalDavid AdamDamian Carrington
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Brave diver puts hand outside protective cage and into great white's mouth

New machine by Xeros cleans clothes with beads and a tiny amount of water and may cut household bills by 30%

"Dry" cleaning is set to become a domestic activity with a washing machine that uses 90% less water than a normal laundry cycle and could be available by the end of 2011. The device, developed by Leeds-based Xeros Ltd, replaces water with tiny plastic beads that suck up stains and its producers claim it will shift stubborn pounds from household energy bills as well.

The Xeros process uses 3mm-long nylon beads that can get into all the crevices and folds of clothing and can also be re-used hundreds of times. The beads flood the machine's drum once the clothes are wet and the humidity is at the right level. After the washing cycle is complete, the beads drain away in the same way as water in a conventional machine.

The chief executive of Xeros, Bill Westwater, said: "The net saving in water, detergent and electricity and including the cost of the beads, we calculate, is about a 30% cost saving for the user." He claims the machine has been tested successfully on a range of fabrics stained with everything from mud, red wine and curry stains to ink from ballpoint pens.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, just under one-third of household energy is used to heat water. Laundry washing also accounts for 15% of all household water consumption; meaning if everyone in the UK converted from normal washing to the Xeros system, the carbon emissions saved would be the equivalent of taking 1.4 m cars off the roads. Another perk of the device is that it should allow many delicates to be "dry" cleaned at home.

Xeros has already received research and development funding from Yorkshire Forward and has just returned from a government-sponsored "Clean and Cool" trade mission to the United States, aimed at securing investment from venture capitalists in Silicon Valley in California.

The idea for polymer-based cleaning came from Stephen Burkinshaw, a polymer chemist at Leeds University who spent 30 years working out how to improve the dyeing of plastics used in fabrics. A few years ago he realised that the stains on clothes acted in a similar way to dyes, and he wondered if he could use plastics to attract away the stains.

After experimenting with a range of plastics, he settled on nylon. Thanks to a natural property of the material, nylon beads attract stains to their surface and, in 100% humidity, the molecular structure of the plastic becomes amorphous, so the stains diffuse into the centre of the beads. "Not only are you able to suck the stain off the clothes, you're also able to ensure there's no deposition back onto the clothes," said Westwater.

When the beads are at the end of their life, saturated with dirt and stains, they can be collected and recycled into, for example, dashboards for cars. Eventually Westwater wants to design a closed-loop recycling system for his washing machines, where saturated beads can be refreshed and re-used in Xeros machines.

Westwater has already built a prototype washing machine and aims to have a product ready for the commercial laundry market by the end of next year, with a consumer version coming to market shortly afterwards. "There is more of a technical challenge [in development] as you compact the system. But it's not just about that - there's also consumer inertia. For millenia, people have been washing their clothes with water and a bit of detergent and suddenly we're coming along and saying that most of that water can be replaced by these beads. That's a big leap in the consumers' minds."

Claire Cunningham, a spokesperson for the government-backed Technology Strategy Board, said Xeros had an "interesting and innovative product" and the environmental and financial savings were of particular interest when it was selected to take part, along with the 18 other British clean technology companies, in the Clean and Cool trade mission.

• Water
• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Energy bills
• Household bills
• Energy

Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Not all dinosaurs were wiped out by the Chicxulub meteorite. We too may be in the midst of mass extinction

Everyone loves an apocalypse, and none more so than the one that sped the dinosaurs to their now legendary status. Having been a popular theory for 30 years, last week scientists finally reached a consensus that it was indeed the after-effects of a juggernaut meteorite crashing 65 million years ago into what we now call Chicxulub in Mexico that triggered the end of the dinosaurs' reign on Earth.

The reasons for loving this particular catastrophe are easy to understand. Dinosaurs are awesome. Giant meteorites are awesome. And of course, the combination of the two opened the door for the rise of the mammals. Our own story begins with that cataclysm.

"Consensus" has unfortunately become a dirty word outside the scientific world, thanks to those who disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists about man-made global warming, but fail to offer any science in return. Unlike climate change, though, many issues remain with this extinction event. Sixty-five million years later, the pattern of extinction looks decidedly uneven. Dinosaurs were wiped out, but many similar-sized crocodiles survived. Amphibians managed to come out of this apocalypse relatively unscathed. Sharks survived, but plesiosaurs perished. Much work remains to be done.

Nevertheless, this consensus on the fate of the dinosaurs is welcomed by people such as me who worry about such things. But let's not get too attached to it. On the grand scale of extinctions, the Chicxulub meteorite is a drop in the ocean. There have been five major extinctions in the history of life. 251 million years ago was the big mama, erasing 95% of sea species and 70% of land life.

It is important to recognise that although 10-mile-wide rocks crashing from space are not the norm, extinction itself is. About 97% of all species that have ever existed currently do not. We may be in the midst of a mass extinction, though probably not on the scale of those 65 or 251 million years ago. Up to a third of all species are "committed to extinction", according to current models.

But it is the speed at which we are losing species that is truly significant. The explosion caused by the Chicxulub meteorite would have been enormous, melting rocks into glass, and vomiting forth mile-high tsunamis. But don't assume that the dinosaurs abruptly keeled over. In the aptly named Hell Creek in Montana, dinosaur fossils have been found dating from up to 40,000 years after the impact.

Climate change is also the planetary norm, but the rate at which the climate is changing since industrialisation is unprecedented. This is reason enough to accept the scientific consensus that we are the root cause, and the same goes for current extinctions.

We have evolved the capability to partially excuse ourselves from natural cataclysms, at least at a species level. Our ability to adapt and survive far outstrips the speed of the same process in natural selection. Should a colossal rock fall from the sky and block out the sun for a thousand years, the effect on humankind would be devastating, but not terminal. Should we continue to ravage the Earth's resources to the extent that human life is unsustainable, it is not in the realm of total fantasy for us to ditch this planet, and set up somewhere else in the universe.

But these are not reasons to be complacent. We exist as a part of this planet, not merely on it. The loss of biodiversity from a mass extinction will be devastating to everyone's lives. Unlike with the previous extinctions, we have the power to slow this current one. We will all have to change our lifestyles to adapt to the world that we have created, but by moderating our impact on extinction, that change won't have to be apocalyptic.

• Dinosaurs
• Conservation
• Endangered species
• Wildlife
• Biodiversity
• Zoology
• Evolution
• Animals

Adam Rutherford
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Jane Bown, Tom Hunter and Daniel Lynch will be among the celebrated photographers auctioning their works in London tonight in aid of the 2009 South Pacific disaster

The Global Warming Policy Foundation calls for transparency among climate scientists but refuses to make public its donors. Maybe its new employee can help us

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the thinktank set up last November "to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant", goes from strength to strength, it would seem.

Just a few days after its chairman, Nigel Lawson, and director, Benny Peiser, appeared before the science and technology select committee to answer questions about the inquiry into the climate science emails hacked from the University of East Anglia, a job advert for a new assistant director has appeared on the House of Commons internal jobs listings website.

We are looking for a highly motivated, young man or woman with strong verbal and written communication skills. Strong grounding in economics is highly desirable but not essential. The assistant director plans, organises, and co-directs the day-to-day operations of the GWPF. He or she assists the director in maintaining good communications with the media, the GWPF's academic advisors, trustees and members, and will be working closely with Lord Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer, former secretary of state for energy, and chairman of the GWPF. The role of assistant director is an outstanding opportunity for a young graduate to help shape the discussion on current and future climate policies and to develop more cost-effective climate policies.

Essential requirements of the position:

• Good research skills and academic ability;
• Good understanding of economics;
• Good knowledge and skills in organisational management;
• Good written and spoken English;
• Strong commitment to the GWPF's mission and goals;
• Good verbal communication, presentation and networking skills;
• Good skills in planning, analysing and coordinating activities and establishing priorities.

I have two thoughts on this job ad. I'm no HR expert, but might it not have benefited from an extra criterion? Something along the lines of: "Good understanding of climate science." Peiser is clearly a very busy man these days, what with being near-omnipresent in the broadcast studios as the GWPF director and keeping up with his day job as a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, so one can perhaps understand his delay in responding to Bob Ward's reasonable request for clarification over why the GWPF's website is still displaying a somewhat wonky temperature graph on its masthead. Perhaps this is a task for his new assistant?

The other thought I had was that if the GWPF is as keen on "maintaining good communications with the media" as it says it is, perhaps it could start by answering the one burning question that has been asked of it since the very first day it opened its door for business? Who is funding it? I asked Nigel Lawson this very question myself last November and received much the same response as he gave to the science and technology committee last week:

Q15 Graham Stringer: Can you tell us how your organisation is funded? We have had an email this morning saying that you have not been transparent in the funding of your organisation.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: I do not think that is within your terms of reference. I am happy to answer it, but we have got quite a lot to do which is within the terms of reference.

Q16 Chairman: Could you just answer it very briefly?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: We have donations from private individuals and private charitable trusts. That is how we are financed. We have one absolutely strict rule: we will not accept any money at all from the energy industry or anyone who has any significant interest in the energy industry.

Q17 Graham Stringer: In one sense you are right, it is not within our terms of reference, but this is a very fraught and vexed question and there is distrust on both sides, so it is better to be clear. Is there a list of your donors available?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, like most thinktanks, not all but like most, we do not publish a list, because if donors wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reasons, perfectly good reasons, then it is their privilege. I am very happy for them to be published.

Q18 Dr Evan Harris: That is strange, because Sense about Science, which is an organisation we hear from a lot, publish all their donors, because they are often accused of being partisan. Would it not be a good idea for you to adopt that rule; otherwise people might have concerns?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: We are absolutely clean. I would be very happy to see the names of all our donors published, I can assure you, it would be very, very good, but if they wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reason, maybe they have other family members who take a different view and they do not want to have a row within the family, maybe they do not want a whole lot of other people asking them for money -

Q19 Chairman: The short answer is you are not giving us the names.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: This is the one in football. It is called playing the man and not the ball. You get a yellow card for that.

Q20 Chairman: Lord Lawson, you are not going to give us those.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, when the annual report comes we will ask our donors if they wish to be named. Some may; some may not.

This important question is clearly going to hang over the GWPF and raise doubts about its agenda until it chooses to answer it in detail. Slippery, undefined statements such as "we do not accept gifts from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company" will always lead to suspicion when operating in such a distrustful environment. What, say, does the GWPF mean exactly by vague terms such as "significant"? It would seem from the exchange above that Nigel Lawson accepts the point that full transparency is the only way to achieve the trust of its critics and the wider public. The GWPF is asking no less of climate scientists, of course. So why not nip this all in the bud right now by saying the GWPF will only accept donations from those who are willing to have their names listed publicly?

Meanwhile, anyone interested in applying for the post should send a covering letter and CV to info@thegwpf.org.

• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism

Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

What is the environmental impact of installing plasma screens to display adverts, and is it worse than traditional posters?

I was wondering if you could help with something that's really getting on my nerves – not least because it seems to necessitate closing Archway tube station at frequent yet random intervals, leaving me with a long and unexpected walk home in the driving rain after 10pm. Transport for London are going to much effort and expense installing plasma screens to display adverts on the Underground system. Surely these screens have a far bigger carbon footprint than the traditional printed posters, what with the initial impact of manufacturing the things, the energy used to keep them all day long and finally the problem of disposing of them safely when they break down and have to be replaced?

Victoria, by email

They do seem to be popping up everywhere nowadays, don't they?

I've often wondered, if they must have these screens everywhere so advertisers can flog their wares, why can't they also use them to, say, flash up live network maps of the public transport system so all us users can see where the congested pinch-points are and then try to avoid them.

But on the question of their energy use I will investigate and return later this week. In the mean time, if any one else has spotted a gratuitously large or ill-placed screen then please supply details below. Alternatively, if you love the presence of these screens and think they are a welcome part of your journey then dive in, too.

• Ethical and green living
• Advertising

Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

I wish to make nine points in my response to George Monbiot's latest round in our disagreement about the importance of solar photovoltaics (PV) and the UK government's upcoming feed-in tariffs.

I have posted a longer version of this comment on my website (doc)

1. Monbiot argues that "either solar photovoltaic (PV) power in the United Kingdom is, as (Leggett) claims, a cheap, efficient technology, or it isn't. If it is, why should we be subsidising it to the tune of 41p per kilowatt hour? If it needs this subsidy, it is neither cheap nor efficient. If it doesn't need it, the feed-in tariffs are even more of a swindle than I thought."

This view takes a snapshot in time that is a flawed basis for analysis because it ignores both the past and the future, in terms of cost, plus the strategic context of the discussion. I don't claim PV is "cheap" today – I never have. PV is on a descending cost trajectory because economies of scale are at work in both manufacturing and installation, and costs and prices of conventional electricity are rising fast. The feed-in tariff is a market-building mechanism. It is designed to create sufficient demand for PV systems to trigger two benefits: first, falling cost and price of solar electricity, and second, growth of a proper UK-based solar PV industry that can compete with the fast-growing industries in Germany, China, the US, Japan and many other countries. More than 40 governments now have feed-in tariffs, and it is clear that many people believe them to be the best way to make grow renewables markets fast.

2. Monbiot bets me £100 that my prediction that solar PV electricity in homes will be no more pricey in 2013 than conventional electricity will be wrong.

I accept Monbiot's bet. But I have a proviso: that the winner donates the £100 to the charity SolarAid, set up by my company, for the training and equipping of solar PV lighting entrepreneurs in Africa.

This seems appropriate because of another sad aspect of Monbiot's assault on PV. He does not mention the strategic importance of providing channels of distribution and credit for mobilising solar PV in the developing world, where solar PV electricity is already economic in competition with kerosene and other alternatives. As even the World Bank has admitted, solar PV is a better bet than conventional power plants for the hundreds of millions of developing-world households currently without electricity.

If I lose the bet on timing of UK grid parity, it would only be by a few years at most, and by 2013 I am confident that people will be able to see the writing on the wall with respect to grid parity. And herein lies my return bet with Monbiot. I bet that if we are near or at grid parity by 2013, that we won't see a column of his admitting to how wrong he was. If he does, I'd gladly donate another £100 to SolarAid.

3. Monbiot suggests that if I "really believed" my sales pitch, I would be calling for the feed-in tariff for new installations to be scrapped in 2013, as it would then be redundant: "He can't have it both ways: defending the tariff while suggesting that the tariff won't be necessary."

I have never suggested that the "tariff won't be necessary." The government does not share my view of when grid parity will be delivered, but nor do they believe as Monbiot appears to that new industries and new installer capacity can just be turned on overnight.

By 2013, just three short years from now, the UK will still be endeavouring to build a domestic PV industry that can compete globally. To do that we will need a strong domestic market. To build that we will need a continuing market-enablement regime. The feed-in tariffs can and will be lower by then, but we will still need them. Otherwise, with a low-growth domestic market in an explosively growing global market, we will be importing almost all the solar technology we useand we will have further undermined our chances of energy independence down the track.

4. Monbiot asserts: "Every pound spent on PV is a pound not spent on a more effective technology."

This is another use of the flawed snapshot argument devoid of strategic considerations. If we were to use only the current price of energy technologies as a yardstick, and discount all trends and strategic considerations, we would allocate all our money to energy efficiency, where we get the quickest paybacks and carbon "bang for the buck." But this not an either-or: we can't solve all our energy problems with energy efficiency. We will need plenty of new generation to replace aging coal and nuclear plants, and this will have to mean a range of generation by renewables, alongside as much gas as Vladimir Putin and others overseas will allow us. We would be crazy just to go for the technologies that happen to be the cheapest in March 2010, and it is extraordinary that an advocate of expensive nuclear like Monbiot can argue this.

5. Monbiot says of the German feed-in tariff: "The realisation in Germany, after 10 years of minimal returns, that they have been getting shockingly bad value for money from their scheme coincides with the launching of the same fiasco in the UK".

It is untrue to suggest that the returns are minimal. Consider just taxation. In 2008, the German government gained almost €3bn from the direct and indirect taxation of German solar power companies and their employees. In the same year, feed-in tariff investments amounted to about €2bn.

6. Monbiot questions the jobs the German feed-in tariff has created. He says: "Leggett goes on to claim, again without attribution, that the Germans have "created over 50,000 jobs in solar PV alone."

The 50,000 German employees are counted by the Federal Solar Industry Association. Monbiot's questioning of even this statistic introduces another relevant issue. I have invited him in to Solarcentury several times to discuss the detail of our story and have a go at calibrating numbers ahead of any epistolary exchanges. I have had no success. He seems to prefer unrooted conflict from afar.

7. Monbiot also questions the location of jobs created. He says: "The electricity users who have to pay for the tariff would be rather put out to discover that the jobs the government says it will create are actually on the other side of the world."

How many mistakes can you make in one article? The Federal Solar Industry Association count over 100 factories in Germany in the industry built to date by the feed-in tariffs. Then there are all the installer companies.

Certainly modules are also imported from China and Japan as well. The global PV market is one of the fastest growing markets in the world (87% in 2008). That is why UK plc needs to be a part of it.

Feed-in tariffs in the UK will lead to many jobs in the UK. Solar companies estimate that around 100,000 new jobs could be created in the UK by 2020. And they will be skilled and fulfilling jobs.

8. Monbiot persists with the argument from his first article: that the British poor will subsidise the solar roofs of the middle class. He says: "Their bills will rise just like everyone else's to pay for a scheme which will mostly benefit the middle classes. This is why it is deeply regressive."

First, it is necessary to be clear about the numbers and the likely impact on average household bills as a result of this scheme. The average yearly cost of the feed-in tariff scheme to household levy payers is projected to be £8.50 per year to 2030. The average annual household levy in 2013 when tariff rates are all up for review is likely to be £3. And those are the costs for all technologies not just solar PV. So the question is whether an average household levy of just £8.50 per year makes the feed-in tariff scheme regressive or not? Furthermore, the government has already committed to make the scheme revenue natural by offering loans whereby households can borrow the capital cost of energy efficiency and renewable technologies and repay them over time using the money saved as a result of installation.

And if PV was so regressive, how come housing associations are so keen on PV as a tool for addressing fuel poverty?

9. Lastly, Monbiot accuses me of ignoring a "killer fact". He says: "Feed-in tariffs cannot reduce our carbon emissions by 1g while the UK remains within the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Monbiot and I might find things to agree on, when it comes to scope for nonsense in the European emission trading scheme, as it stands. But climate policymaking requires many tools in the toolkit, and there is no reason to throw feed-in tariffs out just because politicians have historically granted heavy industry emissions allocations that are too high to deliver an effective carbon price. Monbiot's "killer fact" taken to its logical conclusion would mean no support for any low or zero carbon technology outside the EU ETS.

• Jeremy Leggett is founder and chairman of Solarcentury, the UK's largest solar solutions company.

• Solar power
• Energy
• Renewable energy

Jeremy Leggett
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds