Dear Richard,
It won't do any good apart from allowing me to let off a bit of steam .............................
Dear Ms Richardson,
In 2019 the Conservative Party somehow managed to elect as their
leader someone whose severe character flaws were well known at the
time and who, to any reasonable observer, was clearly wholly
unsuitable for high office. Sadly the subsequent 3 years have
demonstrated that in spades. This is a situation that must never
occur again, and you and the rest of the Parliamentary Party have a
duty to the country to ensure that the two candidates who eventually
emerge towards the end of the process have the appropriate
attributes. The extensive list of possibles and hopefuls touted in
the press contains some alarming names. I suggest that no-one who
supported reneging on an international agreement (the Norther
Ireland Protocol) should have even a sniff at leadership. Such people
have already demonstrated total lack of fitness for the role.
Similarly there are those who have shown something less than
competence in their ministerial roles but who managed to retain the
same through loyalty to the now departed Prime Minister. None of
these candidates should be elevated even further beyond their
capabilities.
The world faces three inter-related existential crises in the form
of climate change, biodiversity damaging habitat destruction, and
pollution. The United Nations has declared these three crises to be
on a par with each other, all requiring urgent and sustained action.
As a G7 nation the United Kingdom must be a leader in such action
with realistic and effective policies properly implemented, not just
bluster and warm words. We deserve a leader who is willing to grasp
this challenge.
Then, at home, there exists the unpleasantness of extreme
inequality. "Levelling Up" may be a great campaigning slogan but it
requires effective backup. A seemingly wealthy constituency such a
Guildford in not immune.
Finally, would it not be sensible for any new leader to drop the
megaphone "diplomacy" with the EU and actually engage with our
nearest market (a huge one, let me remind you)?
Surely there are two Conservative MPs who measure up to the above?
Yours sincerely
Nearly a month ago I wrote to my MP to express my concern over the pathetic response of the Home Office to the Ukranian Refugee issue. Finally I have a response - platitude laden though it may be. I have appended it to this post.
I presume that it was put together by some poor little civil servant or parliamentary aide but you'd expect some sort of sense check wouldn't you. Take this sentence: "A few weeks ago, I co-signed a letter to the Prime Minister, alongside over 40 other Conservative MPs, calling on the Government to provide as much support to our European partners who are currently the first safe havens for Ukrainian refugees, namely Poland, Moldova, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.". As much support as who? or what? Come on - at least make sure your reply is understandable!
As for "I am proud that Britain continues to lead.....". It doesn't, quite evidently from the numbers.
Enough whingeing; here's the full response:
Dear Richard ,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me about the support that the Home Office is providing to Ukrainian nationals.
The Russian attack on Ukraine is an unprovoked and anti-democratic act
of aggression and I am appalled by the conduct of Putin’s expansionist
regime. The situation in Ukraine remains deeply concerning so I welcome
the work that the Home Office has been doing over the course of recent
weeks to stand up a comprehensive package of support for those fleeing
Ukraine, and Ukrainian nationals already in the UK.
The situation is developing quickly, and so the Government has to evolve
its plans to adapt. I therefore welcome the expansive Ukrainian Family
Scheme which allows family members of British nationals, UK settled
persons and certain others to come or stay in the UK. Those joining the
Scheme will be granted leave for three years and will be able to work,
study and access public funds. The Scheme is also free and does not
include any salary or language requirements.
Ukrainians already in the UK can either extend their visa or switch to
another immigration route, where eligible, even if their visa does not
normally allow them to do so. Guidance on the support available
to Ukrainian nationals and their family members can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/support-for-family-members-of-british-nationals-in-ukraine-and-ukrainian-nationals-in-ukraine-and-the-uk
Furthermore, I warmly welcome the launch of the new 'Homes for Ukraine'
scheme which will allow individuals, charities, community groups and
businesses in the UK to bring Ukrainians to safety - including those
with no family ties with the UK. Individual sponsors will be asked to
provide homes or a spare room rent-free for as long as they are able,
with a minimum stay of six months. In return, they will receive £350 per
month. Ukrainians arriving in the UK under this scheme will be granted
three years' leave to remain, with entitlement to work, and access
benefits and public services.
Whilst the package of measures that the Government has announced is
welcome, many constituents across Guildford, like yourself, who have
taken the time to write to me would like to see the Government go
further and act in conjunction with other European countries to share
the responsibility for supporting Ukrainian refugees.
A few weeks ago, I co-signed a letter to the Prime Minister, alongside
over 40 other Conservative MPs, calling on the Government to provide as
much support to our European partners who are currently the first safe
havens for Ukrainian refugees, namely Poland, Moldova, Romania, Hungary
and Slovakia. The letter called for a more flexible and pragmatic
approach to those Ukrainians wishing to seek temporary refuge in the UK
until it is safe to return to their lives in Ukraine. This crisis is not
another migration crisis, it is a crisis of war, and the UK must offer
sincere and immediate support for the Ukrainian people. I would like our
message to be clear: Ukrainian victims of war seeking refuge are
welcome.
I am proud that Britain continues to lead and is providing support in
every aspect of this Ukraine conflict. Ministers have assured me that
they continue to keep the Government’s handling of the situation under
review as it develops, and I will continue to feedback to them
regularly.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Best wishes,
This short think-piece reposted from EiD and originally from Climate Change News is a timely reminder that, while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a near-term problem, climate change poses an existential threat against which we cannot afford delay.
Mattias Söderberg, chief advisor at humanitarian NGO DanChurchAid, provides his views on the need to keep financing climate change in an article on the Climate Change News website.
A little over four months ago, ministers from developed countries attending the Cop26 UN climate summit in Glasgow promised to scale up their climate support to developing countries.
The promise was a critical part of the Glasgow Pact. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February shifted priorities, challenging a commitment made to the world’s most climate vulnerable nations.
The war in Ukraine is a horrifying crisis that must be addressed by the world’s most powerful nations. But its implications go far beyond the country’s border, the humanitarian crisis and millions of displaced people.
There are concerning repercussions for how the world confronts the climate crisis.
In almost all developed countries, climate finance comes out of aid budgets. If wealthy nations are to increase climate finance, more development aid will be used to support efforts to cut emissions and cope with climate impacts in developing countries.
Climate finance is now competing with much-needed relief to Ukrainian refugees and communities living under Russian shelling. If the pot of money for overseas development doesn’t grow, there will be less money available for climate finance.
Western countries, and particularly EU member states, are already revising their budgets to redirect funds to support Ukrainian refugees, reduce their dependence on Russian gas and oil, and scale up their military and defence budgets.
In a major policy shift, Germany approved a national defence fund and committed €100 billion ($110bn) in military spending. In Denmark, 11% of the national budget for overseas development assistance has turned into support for Ukrainian refugees. And in Norway, the government has decided to put development aid disbursements, including climate finance, on hold while they assess the possibility for allocating more of the money to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the US has already fallen short on its climate finance promise. President Joe Biden committed to provide $11.4bn a year for climate finance in poor and vulnerable nations by 2024 – a considerable increase from levels under his predecessor Donald Trump but still short of the country’s fair share of $45-50bn.
Now, this just sounds like empty words. Earlier this month, Congress approved only $1bn in climate finance for 2022 while agreeing on a $13.6bn aid package to Ukraine.
The war is further compounding a rise of global food prices, which reached an all-time high in February 2022. Around a quarter of global wheat exports come from Russia and Ukraine and disruptions to the wheat trade may tip some countries into famine.
A global food crisis will require additional funds from wealthy nations to address and put more pressure on already limited aid budgets.
The solution must be for wealthy nations to deliver new and additional climate finance, outside of pots of money earmarked for overseas development assistance – a long-standing demand of developing countries and NGOs.
Even this may become a challenge. With Ukraine as a top priority for US and European leaders, the next round of spending plans and budgets are likely to see investments to address soaring energy prices, the halting of Russian energy imports and a boost for national defense budgets rather than climate action for the world’s poor.
That would make it more difficult for western countries to deliver on their promise of significantly scaling up climate finance and meeting and exceeding a 2009 goal to mobilise $100bn a year.
The war in Ukraine is horrific and humanitarian support to refugees and a transition away from Russian fossil fuels are necessary.
However, the climate crisis is not on hold. Promises of additional climate finance must be kept. Both because the money is urgently needed, to enable mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and because climate finance is part of the fragile political agreement on global efforts to limit global heating.
SUVs are a pain in the butt and should have been legislated away, or at least into a little niche, when they first started appearing (or even before). Unfortunately UK policy makers were, once again, far to lily livered to attack "the right to drive". It's like a four-wheeled version of the US gun lobby.
However, now we are at this parlous state is deflating tyres and annoying people really the way to persuade them to change their habits (and vehicles)? I think not. Major tweaks to taxation might be a better bet.
The following is from the Conversation via EiD.
A new direct action group calling itself the Tyre Extinguishers recently sabotaged hundreds of sports utility vehicles (SUVs) in various wealthy parts of London and other British cities. Under cover of darkness, activists unscrewed the valve caps on tyres, placed a bean or other pulse on the valve and then returned the cap. The tyres gently deflated.
Why activists are targeting SUVs now can tell us as much about the failures of climate policy in the UK and elsewhere as it can about the shape of environmental protest in the wake of Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain.
The “mung bean trick” for deflating tyres is tried and tested. In July 2008, the Oxford Mail reported that up to 32 SUVs were sabotaged in a similar way during nocturnal actions in three areas of the city, with anonymous notes left on the cars’ windscreens.
In Paris in 2005, activists used bicycle pumps to deflate tyres, again at night, again in affluent neighbourhoods, again leaving anonymous notes. In both cases, activists were careful to avoid causing physical damage. Now it’s the Tyre Extinguishers who are deflating SUV tyres.
In the early 2000s, SUVs were still a relative rarity. But by the end of 2010s, almost half of all cars sold each year in the US and one-third of the cars sold in Europe were SUVs.
In 2019, the International Energy Agency reported that rising SUV sales were the second-largest contributor to the increase in global CO₂ emissions between 2010 and 2018 after the power sector. If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions.
At the same time, the Tyre Extinguishers’ DIY model of activism has never been easier to propagate. “Want to get involved? It’s simple – grab some leaflets, grab some lentils and off you go! Instructions on our website,” chirps the group’s Twitter feed.
Though the actions led by the Tyre Extinguishers have numerous precedents, the group’s recent appearance in the UK’s climate movement does mark a change of strategy.
Extinction Rebellion (XR), beginning in 2018, hoped to create an expanding wave of mobilisations to force governments to introduce new processes for democratically deciding the course of climate action. XR attempted to circumvent existing protest networks, with its message (at least initially) aimed at those who did not consider themselves activists.
In contrast, activists in the Tyre Extinguishers have more in common with groups that have appeared after XR, such as Insulate Britain, whose members blockaded motorways in autumn 2021 to demand government action on the country’s energy inefficient housing. These are what we might call pop-up groups, designed to draw short-term media attention to specific issues, rather than develop broad-based, long-lasting campaigns.
After a winter of planning, climate activists are likely to continue grabbing headlines throughout spring 2022. XR, along with its sister group, Just Stop Oil, threaten disruption to UK oil refineries, fuel depots and petrol stations. Their demands are for the government to stop all new investments in fossil fuel extraction.
The Tyre Extinguishers explicitly targeted a specific class of what they consider anti-social individuals. Nevertheless, that the group’s action is covert and (so far at least) sporadic is itself telling.
In his book How to Blow up a Pipeline, Lund University professor of human ecology Andreas Malm asked at what point climate activists will stop fetishising absolute non-violence and start campaigns of sabotage. Perhaps more important is the question that Malm doesn’t ask: at what point will the climate movement be strong enough to be able to carry out such a campaign, should it choose to do so?
Given the mode of action of the Tyre Extinguishers, the answer on both counts is: almost certainly not yet.
For now, the Tyre Extinguishers will doubtless be sustained by red meat headlines in the right-wing press. It’s still probable, however, that the group will deflate almost as quickly as it popped up: this is, after all, what has happened with similar groups in the past.
The fact that activists are once again employing these methods speaks to the failure of climate policy. Relatively simple, technical measures taken in the early 2000s would have solved the problem of polluting SUVs before it became an issue. The introduction of more stringent vehicle emissions regulations, congestion charging, or size and weight limits, would have stopped the SUV market in its tracks.
SUVs are important because they are so much more than metal boxes. Matthew Paterson, professor of international politics at the University of Manchester, argues that the connection between freedom and driving a car has long been an ideological component of capitalism.
And Matthew Huber, professor of geography at Syracuse University in the US, reminds readers in his book Lifeblood that oil is not just an energy source. It generates ways of being which become culturally and politically embedded, encouraging individualism and materialism.
Making SUVs a focal point of climate activism advances the argument that material inequality and unfettered individual freedoms are incompatible with any serious attempt to address climate change.
And here lies the crux of the conflict. The freedom of those who can afford to drive what, where and when they want infringes on the freedoms of the majority to safely use public space, enjoy clean air, and live on a sustainable planet.
"Saving energy in a hurry" really can be effective in a crisis. I picked up this post from EiD which itself is a repost from the Conversation.
Aurore Julien, Senior Lecturer and Research Manager, University of East London writes on The Conversation website, that consumers can make a big difference. Interestingly, Aurore Julien’s PhD covered rapid energy savings to mitigate a natural gas crisis (2014).
EiD would like to point out that the Buildings Performance Institute Europe has recently come up with Solidarity and resilience: An action plan to save energy now! The IEA came up with a 10 point plan referred to in the Julien post.
Separately, Fiona Harvey writes on The Guardian website with the following question: Can turning down our radiators turn up the heat on Vladimir Putin? No doubt there will be more such articles soon.
Russia has threatened to close a major gas pipeline to Europe in retaliation for countries considering bans on Russian oil imports. This could drive up prices due to lack of supply internationally, which would affect even countries like the UK which do not use much Russian gas.
Right now, prices are already sky-high and affecting people’s bills. Ofgem, the UK energy regulator, will increase the price cap by £693 (US$911) from April 2022, meaning gas bills will increase for 22 million customers. This will particularly affect those already in fuel poverty.
This is not the first time that Russia has used gas supply as a political weapon. In 2009, the country cut off supplies to Ukraine when supply contract negotiations collapsed. Ukraine retaliated by withholding Russian gas to Europe, which meant no gas at all for some households. The crisis resulted in higher market trading prices for natural gas. It was thought that Russia depended so heavily on the revenues generated from European sales of its gas that it was unlikely to use it against Europe. Yet, UK energy regulators later suggested that a disruption in gas from Russia would result in an overall reduction in the pool of gas available on the market, which could drive up gas prices.
Recently, the International Energy Agency suggested turning thermostats down to use less gas in the current crisis. It claimed lowering the heating by just 1°C would reduce gas demand by some 10 billion cubic metres a year – about 7% of Europe’s annual imports from Russia.
So can energy consumers really make a difference?
Consumers have shown that they’re able to rapidly reduce their energy consumption in response to a crisis: this is known as “saving energy in a hurry”.
These programmes are generally voluntary and promoted through public advertisement campaigns. Sometimes other measures are used too, such as rationing, technology replacement (installing low-energy bulbs) and financial measures (such as making energy use over a certain amount much more expensive to discourage consumption). These measures are often relatively cheap, do not harm the economy as much as blackouts, and they are effective.
In my research, I examined whether saving energy in a hurry could be used to reduce gas demand in a crisis similar to the one we face today. I surveyed households in London to ask them what energy saving actions they would be willing to take in a severe gas shortage. From their responses, I calculated that household energy use would fall by 23%, based on both use of gas for household heating and cooking, and gas used in power stations to generate electricity.
The most effective actions were to turn off radiators in unused rooms, lower the thermostat by 1°C and draw curtains to keep the heat in. Reducing electricity use could reduce gas demand too: turning off lights was somewhat effective, whereas unplugging electronics such as phone chargers or turning off equipment such as TVs on standby at night had a negligible impact.
There are examples of saving energy in a hurry from the past. During the second world war, posters encouraged citizens in the US and the UK to save fuel such as petrol and coal.
More recent examples have been in response to electricity shortages. In 2008, when an avalanche damaged a major electrical power line in Juneau, Alaska, the town launched an campaign named “Juneau Unplugged” asking inhabitants to save power. Demand dropped by 40% in a few weeks, largely within the first week. In the summer of 2011, Japanese consumers reduced power demand by 12% to ease the electricity shortage triggered by the Fukushima disaster. In Colombia in March 2016, a drought threatened the 70% of the country’s power capacity which comes from hydroelectricity. A six-week media campaign, combined with high charges levied on those consuming more energy, resulted in a 4.5% fall in energy consumption.
So we’ve seen it has worked in the past, but it’s almost impossible to predict how much gas would be saved in the current situation. Behaviour is complex and difficult to predict exactly – the political context, the way the promotion campaign is led and other measures taken could affect how readily people comply.
Tactics such as energy saving in a hurry should only be taken in extreme circumstances, as they inconvenience consumers and require credible leadership by responsible authorities to succeed. Authorities would need to ensure that households do not put themselves at risk by lowering the thermostat too much, as indoor temperatures below 12°C are risky for vulnerable people. But it may still be an attractive alternative to the disruption caused by price hikes.
Long-term approaches for reducing energy consumption are needed. A more dependable solution would be to deploy heat pumps to provide an energy efficient alternative to heat homes, alongside greater energy efficiency measures like insulation and double glazing which could halve energy demand in UK homes over 20 years.
When heat pumps are powered by the growing proportion of renewable energy in the grid, this ultimately reduces dependence on gas as well as carbon emissions. With 10% of the contracts Gazprom (a Russian majority state-owned energy company) uses to supply Europe with gas expiring at the end of 2022, there’s an overwhelming incentive to eliminate dependence on Russian fuel.
Back in the days when I had to don a suit every weekday morning we were talking about the importance of distributed generation. Now, 20 years on, what do we have people calling for? Well, see this repost from edie:
More than 300 MPs, including Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and the chairman on the 1922 Committee, and 100 local authorities have backed a new "Local Electricity Bill" aimed at promoting renewable sourcing projects across the UK and move away from foreign gas imports.
The campaigners argue that the Bill could enable community renewable energy capacity to grow twentyfold by 2030 to account for 10% of UK electricity generation
The Local Electricity Bill has been championed by the campaign group Power for People, with the aim of enabling communities across the UK to source local clean energy. This, in turn, would reduce the UK’s dependency on volatile gas imports.
Power for the People has today announced that more than 300 MPs, including 116 Conservatives, and 102 local authorities have now backed the bill.
Power for People’s Director, Steve Shaw, said, “The biggest threat to human civilisation and the natural world is climate breakdown. Global emissions have increased by over 400% since 1950, with levels of CO2 at their highest concentration in the past two million years. It is not too late to turn things around - I know the power of campaigns like this.
“The enormous emissions reductions the Local Electricity Bill aims to bring must be a key pillar in our mission to avert climate catastrophe whilst making our energy system more robust and boosting local jobs and the economies of communities across the country.”
Currently, UK customers can purchase electricity from nationally listed utilities. Organisations that are also supporting the Bill – including WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB – believe that more powers need to be issued to power community renewable energy projects.
The campaigners argue that the Bill could enable community renewable energy capacity to grow twentyfold by 2030 to account for 10% of UK electricity generation.
The group is now calling for more MPs and the Government to back the Bill. Currently, supporters of the Bill, including Conservative MP, David Johnston, are in talks with the Government’s Energy Minister, Greg Hands MP, and his department.
In his response, the Energy Minister stated: “The Government recognise the role community and locally-owned renewable energy schemes can and do play in supporting the UK’s national net-zero targets … [Community groups] can be a catalyst in the promotion of behaviour change, which we all know is vital to reaching net zero.”
Russian sanctions
The UK has this week made a landmark decision to stop importing Russian oil and related projects this year.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said in a statement that the phase-out will “allow the UK more than enough time to adjust supply chains” but will also “step up the international pressure on Russia’s economy. The UK has already banned Russian ships from UK ports.
Russia is the world’s third-largest oil producer and exporter, beyond only the US and Saudi Arabia. Oil accounts for 44% of all Russian exports, generating 17% of the Russian federal government’s annual revenues. Yet, because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its export markets are fast dwindling.
The UK is not the only major economy to announce fresh measures to end Russian fossil fuel imports. The European Commission has outlined plans to accelerate some of the EU's plans on renewables and gas storage, with the ultimate aim of becoming independent from Russian imports “well before” 2030. These plans have been called ‘REPowerEU’. They will shortly be put to the bloc's Member States at a meeting in Versailles.
Elsewhere, US President Joe Biden has today announced a ban on all Russian energy imports, starting with oil, which will be phased out in 2022.
Matt Mace
