Does Your Company Have A CO2 Goal?

Some worrying detail in this report from Edie:



Most European companies have no target for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions even though 80% see climate change as a business risk, a survey has found.

Among those that have set climate goals, only one in three stretch beyond 2025, according to the annual Carbon Disclosure Project report.

Instead, corporate action has focused in the boardroom, with 47% of firms rewarding their CEOs for climate performance, and a quarter tying incentives to environmental goals.

European firms now make up half of the CDP’s environmental “A-list” and the managing director for Europe, Steven Tebbe, praised climate disclosure’s entry into the financial mainstream.

“The next decade is vital if our shift to a sustainable economy is to be successful, and companies lie at the heart of this transition,” he said.

A-list companies on the Stoxx global climate change leaders index outperformed their peers by 5.5% per annum this decade, he noted.

Although 53% of companies surveyed did not yet have climate goals, 58% reported carbon cuts in 2018, amounting to a total reduction of the equivalent of 85m tonnes of CO2 – as much as Austria’s annual emissions.

One-third of companies reported increased emissions.

One A-listed property management firm, Landsec, has cut its greenhouse gases by 17% since 2014 – on the way to a planned 40% tail-off by 2030.

Caroline Hill, Landsec’s head of sustainability, said: “We set what was the first science-based carbon reduction target in real estate, based on what was needed in our sector to ensure the world keeps within 1.5 to 2C of global warming.”

She said the company drove down energy consumption in London offices and suburban retail parks by upgrading to LED lighting and systematically installing rooftop solar panels.

This year, CDP received climate disclosures from 849 European companies in 23 countries, with combined emissions of around 2.3bn tonnes of CO2 – a total greater than the UK, Germany and France combined.

Campaigners responded angrily to the inclusion on the A-list of fossil fuel firms such as Engie, Naturgy Energy Group SA and Neste Oyj, chemical firms Bayer AG and BASF, and food companies such as Nestlé.

Pascoe Sabido, a spokesman for Corporate Europe Observatory, said: “If these companies represent the crème de la crème of environmentally-friendly big businesses, then we really are in trouble.

“They shouldn’t be celebrated, they should be kept as far away from our policy-makers as possible.”

Tebbe said: “We are not claiming these are perfect companies – far from it – but they are really going beyond the consensus and showing leadership in their sectors.”

Arthur Nelson

Electric Cars Cheaper to Run

The following fascinating report is from Edie. I have been mulling the idea of the next household car being an electric one and this is added incentive. The critical issue, of course, is the continued greening of electricity supply. If there really is a massive increase in electric vehicles, and we move to the likes of heat pumps for space heating and induction hobs for coking, then electricity supply will have to increase significantly - and that must not be through fossil fuels.

Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run than petrol or diesel alternatives in five European countries analysed in new research.

The study examined the purchase, fuel and tax costs of Europe’s bestselling car, the VW golf, in its battery electric, hybrid, petrol and diesel versions. Over four years, the pure electric version was the cheapest in all places – UK, Germany, France, Netherlands and Norway – owing to a combination of lower taxes, fuel costs and subsidies on the purchase price.

Researchers from the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) said their report showed that tax breaks are a key way to drive the rollout of electric vehicles and tackle climate change and air pollution.

Carbon emissions from transport are a big contributor to global warming, but have been rising in recent years in the European Union. Vehicles are also a source of much air pollution, which causes 500,000 early deaths a year in the EU.

Electric cars offer the biggest savings over diesel in Norway (27%) as the battery-powered vehicles are exempt from a heavy registration tax. The ICCT analysis was updated for the Guardian after recent cuts in the UK’s grants for electric car purchases. It shows British drivers see the smallest saving – 5%. In Germany, France and the Netherlands, the saving varied from 11% to 15%.

Sandra Wappelhorst, from the ICCT, said: “Most trips are within an electric vehicle’s range, and it is the battery electric vehicle that turns out to be the most cost-effective over four years. But if you’re a country doctor, who might have to respond to emergency calls at odd hours in odd places, you’ll have to evaluate a battery electric car differently to a London surgeon.”

Wappelhorst said financial incentives for electric cars would not be needed when purchase prices fall to that of fossil-fuel powered cars, which is likely between 2025 and 2030. “It will happen, because battery costs are dropping and that means that the initial price of the vehicles will drop as well,” she added.

Cost is not the only factor, Wappelhorst said. While electric car owners can also benefit from reduced parking and road toll charges, they need to be confident there are sufficient charging points. Regulation is also needed to push car manufacturers toward low-emission vehicles, she said.

The analysis showed plug-in hybrid vehicles were often the most expensive to run over four years, in part due to the higher purchase of vehicles that in effect have two engines.

James Tate, at the University of Leeds, and colleagues published a study in December 2017 looking at the costs of motoring in the UK, US and Japan. It focused on depreciation and fuel costs and also found electric cars were cheapest: electricity much is less expensive than petrol or diesel.

Tate said the UK government could do more to drive the growth of electric cars. “My view is that the UK should do much more to steer the market away from the most polluting and inefficient cars, ie SUVs/4x4 which are continuing to grow in sales,” he said. “These large, heavy vehicles burden us and the climate with unnecessary CO2 and air pollutants. A taxation policy that rises with fuel consumption rates, such as in the Netherlands and Norway is overdue.”

UK taxation does increase with emissions for company cars, but not for privately owned ones.

In 2018, the sales of new electric cars in the UK rose by 21%, reaching a market share of 6%. In contrast, diesel car sales plummeted by 30%, though this was still a 32% market share.

Tate said carmakers, still reeling from the diesel emissions scandal, were struggling to keep up. “Demand for electric vehicles is outstripping supply. Manufacturers are scaling up production and developing new models, but have been caught out by the rapid change in the market.”

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “The UK government’s enthusiasm for electric cars is clear, but it must ensure its policies are clear and consistent so private and fleet buyers can make purchasing decisions that aren’t undermined by policy shifts further down the road.”

Damian Carrington

Brexit and my MP - Part 44

More stuff from my MP cluttering my inbox while I was on holiday. I am becoming a trifle fed up with her attempts to teach me to suck eggs? Does she really think that the following is helpful?




January 30 2019
Brexit Amendments
I want to update you on the current situation with regard to Brexit.
As you will be aware, the debate on our withdrawal from the EU continued yesterday and MPs from different parties tabled amendments to the motion. Although 15 amendments were tabled, the Speaker chose 7 for debate and votes. Please find attached a summary of the amendments that were selected.
Last night, Amendment (n) was backed by a majority of MPs including myself. It was important that the Prime Minister had the largest possible vote in the House in order to go back to the EU to reopen discussions particularly with regard to parts of the Withdrawal Agreement, specifically the backstop. I have had (and continue to have) doubts that the EU will be open to substantial changes to the Agreement. However, the vote last night showed that there is a clear majority of MPs who want to avoid no-deal, and who believe trying to renegotiate the backstop is the way to achieve this.
The Prime Minister has said that trying to get a change from the EU is going to be difficult, but I understand she will return to Brussels later this week. I am pleased I have had the chance to meet the Prime Minister in recent days to make her aware of what I feel are the needs of both Guildford and the country. I am also pleased that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will be meeting later today.
Whilst some of the six other amendments that were selected had their merits, in particular Amendment (i), I feel strongly that we need one last attempt to get a deal with the EU that commands a majority in the House. In my view this is not the moment to cut off our negotiating hand.
I would urge you to follow the link below to read what the Prime Minister said about the amendments and to read the different contributions that were made by MPs across the House: https://tinyurl.com/y8tw6kv3. If would like a hard copy of the debates, please do let me know so that I can arrange this to be sent to you.
I will do my best, as ever, to keep you updated as events unfold in Westminster.
My best wishes,
Anne.

Brexit and my MP - Part 43

More from my MP Anne Milton including "The deal offers a clear way forward in our relationship with the EU as our leaving date in March moves closer. I took a pragmatic decision to make sure that our exit from the EU was as orderly as possible." What's wrong with a pragmatic approach to work flat out for the UK to remain within the EU?

Her full text, if you can bear to read it:-

16 January 2019
Withdrawal Agreement Vote
I thought it would be helpful to update you following the vote on the draft Withdrawal Agreement yesterday.
As you may be aware, I voted to support the draft Agreement. The results were:
• 202 votes for
• 432 votes against
Although the draft Withdrawal Agreement is by no means perfect, I feel as strongly as I have always done that it is important to honour the result of the referendum. In my view the Agreement would do that.
When I voted to trigger Article 50 I emailed a number of you and said that ‘the Government’s job is now to negotiate the best deal possible for the UK’. Two years later, the Government presented its Withdrawal Agreement to the House of Commons, backed by EU leaders and heads of the other 27 EU countries. This was the outcome of two years of negotiations, hard-work and compromise by both the UK Government and their European counterparts.
The deal offers a clear way forward in our relationship with the EU as our leaving date in March moves closer. I took a pragmatic decision to make sure that our exit from the EU was as orderly as possible. I know that the Agreement did not satisfy all of the different concerns both here in Parliament and of the public, but I believed that it was the best option for minimal disruption to our citizens, services and businesses in Guildford and around the country.
Today we now face a vote of confidence in the Government as we expected, and that debate is ongoing as I write this email. There seems to be a belief from some that it is possible to negotiate a much-improved deal. It might be possible to gain small changes but I do not believe that the EU is likely to agree to any substantive changes. However, we need to be clear what would be needed in the way of changes, in order to command a majority in the House. We have heard much about what people don’t want but much less about what MPs do want that is also achievable from the EU.
I still feel very strongly that Parliament and MPs have a duty to try and find consensus. I have had, and still have, grave concerns about a 2nd referendum. My concerns grow and do not diminish. I also remain convinced that leaving on WTO rules will result in an economic downturn and I am unwilling to risk the subsequent social consequences that would ensue.
Parliament faces an extraordinarily difficult time. Our arrangements and institutions with the EU have grown together over the past 45 years and I always knew separation would be slow and difficult to achieve in order to avoid economic damage to both sides.
The Prime Minister will return on Monday to present the Government’s next steps to Parliament. You can follow the debate live at: https://parliamentlive.tv/Commons. You can also see what was discussed in the five days of debate on the Withdrawal Agreement at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/. I would urge you to read or watch some of the debates as many of the speeches were extremely thoughtful.
As ever, I will continue to keep you up to date as best I can but in the meantime my thanks once again for contacting me. I have read and will continue to read and appreciate all the emails, phone calls and letters that I have received and they have been invaluable in the run-up to the vote.
My best wishes,
Anne.

Brexit and my MP - Part 42

No! My breath is definitely NOT bated.

Dear Richard

Many thanks for your email, I will make sure that Anne sees your comments as soon as possible.

Very best wishes,
Joe

Joseph Howe

Office of the Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

T. 0207 219 8392/0017

If you want to see what Anne is up to in Guildford, Parliament or just what she does in her spare time, why not follow Anne on Twitter?  To follow Anne on Twitter please do click on the following link: http://twitter.com/annemilton

From: Richard Bawden [mailto:rjbawden@aol.com]
Sent: 10 January 2019 09:01
To: MILTON, Anne <anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Government responded to “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”

Dear Mrs Milton

I have just received the attached email.

Paraphasing it says to me "It's regrettable that some groups lied and cheated but, hey, they won, so that's OK"

Really?

Yours sincerely


Richard Bawden

Sent from  Richard Bawden's Personal account.

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Government responded to “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2019 04:00:13 +0000
From:	Petitions: UK Government and Parliament <no-reply@petition.parliament.uk>
To:	rjbawden@aol.com

	You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition: “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”. To unsubscribe from getting emails about this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/48055011/unsubscribe?token=jlRO3AihNuOq2z80nrv Dear Richard James Bawden, The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”. Government responded: It is regrettable that fines were levied on multiple groups, but it is firm policy the Article 50 notification will not be withdrawn. Britain voted to leave and Government respects that decision. It is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups involved in the referendum campaign. However, the Government is clear that there can be no attempt to rescind Article 50. The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction. The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act. In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then voted for parties committing to respecting the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the electorate. This was not a decision made after just a few weeks of campaigning, but one that came after a debate that had taken place both in Parliament and across the country for decades. The Government is determined to make a success of the British people’s decision to leave the European Union. And that is how we have always approached the negotiations - anticipating success, not failure. It is vital that we try to reach an agreement that builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners. Not just for those who voted to leave, but for every citizen of the United Kingdom. We were given a national mandate and this Government is determined to deliver a deal in the national interest. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people. The premise that the people can trust their politicians to deliver on the promises they make and will deliver them in Parliament is fundamental to our democracy. It is not acceptable for any organisation to breach electoral procedures and it is regrettable that fines have been levied on multiple groups involved in the referendum campaigns. The Electoral Commission is an independent regulator, accountable to Parliament, not the Government, and the use of its sanctioning powers show that it is doing its job. However, almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the referendum, resulting in the highest ever number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, to leave the European Union. This instruction was then reinforced both in Parliament, and in the subsequent General Election. The British people therefore gave a clear directive to Government to leave the EU, and we are committed to respecting that directive. Our focus now is on making a success of Brexit, and delivering an outcome which will better the lives of British people, whether they voted to leave or to remain. Department for Exiting the European Union Click this link to view the response online: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729?reveal_response=yes This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action. The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament

Brexit and my MP - Part 41

This woman really is a wet weekend!

Many thanks for contacting me about Brexit. 

Over the past month alone, I have received thousands of pieces of correspondence from constituents (letters, emails and phone calls) about Brexit.  I want you to know that I do appreciate the concerns and frustrations that have been raised as the debate on our withdrawal from the EU continues.  Time does not allow for me to respond to every individual point, but I want you to know that I do read through all the comments and points you raise.  Please do continue to share them with me.  It is invaluable for me to hear all the very different opinions.

I would like to update you on the events in the House of Commons this week. The debate on the Withdrawal Agreement resumed on Wednesday 8 January and will continue until the vote on the Agreement on Tuesday 15 January.  On Wednesday, the Government accepted a key amendment to the EU Withdrawal Act.  This amendment, tabled by Dominic Grieve MP, means that if the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down, the Government must present the next steps to Parliament in 3 working days, instead of 21.

Two of the options, if the Agreement does not get through the House, are that we either leave on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules or we have a second referendum.  I am strongly of the belief that there is not a majority of MPs who want to leave on WTO rules.  It may be the case that another referendum might get a majority in the House, however it is possible that other options may be put forward.

I have great concerns about a second referendum.  I now understand, however, that it may be the only way out of any impasse that Parliament will face if the Agreement is voted down.  Until the House faces such a deadlock, it will be very difficult to enact the enabling legislation for a second referendum.

As I have mentioned, the debate on the Agreement is scheduled to continue until the vote on Tuesday 15 January.  I am certain that all outcomes will be considered and I encourage you to follow the debates live via the link at https://parliamentlive.tv/Commons.  You can also find a transcript of what has already been discussed since the debate resumed, at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-09.  Please let me know if you would like a paper copy of the debates, as I can arrange for this to be sent you.

When it comes to the vote on Tuesday, I will consider all of the advice that I have been given and vote for what I believe is the right thing for my constituents and for the country.  Thank you again for contacting me, please continue to do so, and I will keep you updated as the debate continues in the House.

My best wishes,

Anne

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills

Tel: 020 7219 8392/0017