GoodLifeBottles - 728x90

UK news

Organic food not healthier, says FSA

July 30, 2009

Report finds organic food provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food

Organic food is no healthier and provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food, according to a new, independent study funded by the Food Standards Agency. But its conclusions have been called into question by experts and organic food campaigners.

The report looked at evidence published over the past 50 years of the different nutrient levels found in crops and livestock from both types of farming and also at the health benefits of eating organic food. The findings, partly published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, contradict previous work that has found organically grown food to be nutritionally superior.

Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Most studies were based on the hypothesis that eating organic food is beneficial to health. Looking at all of the studies published in the last 50 years, we have concluded that there’s no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content.”

He said that while small differences in nutrient content were found between organic and conventionally produced food, they were “unlikely to be of any public health relevance”.

Organic food campaigners criticised the study for failing to consider fertiliser and pesticide residues in food. They expressed disappointment at its “limited” nature, saying that without long-term studies it did not provide a clear answer on whether eating organic food has health benefits. A leading food academic went further, saying he found the conclusions “selective in the extreme”.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said: “We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. It doesn’t say organic food is not healthier, just that, according to the criteria they have adopted, there’s no proof that it is.”

He criticised the methodology used by the team, which he said meant they rejected as “not important” some nutritional benefits they found in organic food, and led them to different conclusions from those reached by previous studies.

Melchett said: “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.”

Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University and the co-ordinator of a major EU-funded study which recently found nutrient levels were higher in organic foods, said the conclusions of the study were selective.

He said: “I’m worried about the conclusions. The ballpark figures they have come up with are similar to ours. I don’t understand why the FSA are not going away and saying, ‘Right, there’s something you can do on a farm to improve food.’ But they are so blocked by not wanting to say positive things about organic farming.”

The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.

The farming of organic food, which is now worth £2bn in the UK alone, is governed by strict regulations that set it apart from conventional farming. Crops are not treated with artificial chemical fertilisers or pesticides, while antibiotics and drugs are not used routinely on livestock.

Gill Fine, the FSA director of consumer choice, defended the scope of the study. She said: “We are neither anti or pro organic food. We recognise there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. We specifically checked claims that organic food is better for you.

“This study does not mean people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and there is not evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

When asked whether consumers had been misled over the benefits of organic food, she said: “If they are buying organic on the basis that it is healthier, then that is not the case.”

The EU study co-ordinated by Leifert, which ended in May this year, involved 31 research and university institutes. It found that levels of nutritionally desirable compounds, such as antioxidants and vitamins, were higher in organic crops, while levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as toxic chemicals, mycotoxins and metals such as cadmium and nickel, were lower in organic crops.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Engineers accused of taking ‘tidal reef’ idea in Severn estuary competition

July 29, 2009

Decc rejects proposal from Rupert Armstrong-Evans but accepts very similar project from Rolls-Royce and WS Atkins

The government and two of Britain’s biggest engineering companies have been accused of taking the idea of a leading marine engineer who came up with a novel plan to harness vast amounts of tidal energy from the Severn estuary while causing only minimal ecological damage.

Rupert Armstrong-Evans, who pioneered renewable energy in Britain and now runs a marine engineering firm in Cornwall, spent 18 months researching the idea of a 12-mile long “tidal reef” for the estuary. His construction, planned to run between Minehead in Somerset and Aberthaw in the Vale of Glamorgan, would be cheaper to build and could generate as much electricity as several nuclear power stations without destroying tens of thousands of hectares of internationally protected wetlands, he claimed.

The idea was last year picked up by the RSPB which commissioned engineering consultant WS Atkins to assess its technical and economic feasibility. The 23-page Atkins report published in November 2008, confirmed that the idea was workable and could be as much as £2bn cheaper than a giant barrage. Professor Rod Rainey of Atkins, one of the world’s leading marine engineers, who did the assessment said at the time: “We believe this scheme could be more powerful but less costly than other plans being put forward, particularly the barrage.”

Armstrong-Evans’s idea was then entered in a Department of Energy and Climate Change competition to find the best way to harness the Severn’s tidal power and was shortlisted into the last five one month ago. But last week it was rejected in favour of a fundamentally similar design put forward by Rolls-Royce and WS Atkins.

The disputed design, which relies on a very low head of water rather than the Severn’s enormous tidal range, is now considered to be a surprise frontrunner for what would be Europe’s largest single green energy project. It is also politically attractive because it is more likely to appeal to the powerful consortium of green groups including the National Trust, the WWF and the RSPB, who have condemned the idea of a massive barrage.

“The government called on engineers for proposals to generate large amounts of electricity from the Severn. I spent 18 months full time devising and developing the idea, and had to raise a mortgage. This was a totally new concept in tidal power generation,” said Evans. The design requires more turbines than a large barrage but Evans said it saves greatly on weight of concrete in the foundations and installation costs.

Armstrong-Evans is one of the fathers of British marine energy and has developed hundreds of hydroelectric schemes around the world. He calculates that his idea would cut Britain’s carbon emissions by around 12m tonnes a year, create more than 30,000 jobs during construction and give a global lead for local manufacturing companies.

“The idea was entered in good faith into the government’s competition. The Atkins proposal is the same as the one I put in. It’s a dead crib. They call it a low head scheme and I call it a reef but it’s the same,” he said.

Armstrong-Evans yesterday accused the government of working for the two multinationals companies. “I smelled a rat when I did a presentation to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. They were fast asleep and had only two questions for me. I thought, at worst, that they would be a collaboration between me and Rolls-Royce. But I got a phone call saying I had not been selected.” He was further dismayed that Rolls-Royce refused to collaborate with him.

“The reef is a completely new idea for tidal energy. I took out 16 patents but they are only as good as you are prepared to fight for. The little man does not stand a chance. I would have to keep the patents up for 15 years at least and the law is stacked against me. I filed the patents purely to show that there was something in it the idea. I was quite happy to give the idea to the nation for free.”

Yesterday the government accepted that the Atkins idea developed directly out of Armstrong-Evans’s reef proposal. “The Atkins/Rolls-Royce design developed out of Atkins review of the reef proposal for the RSPB. This found fundamental engineering flaws in the reef design and came up with a different plan. We have tried very hard to provide opportunities for the tidal reef proposal to develop. But, sadly we don’t believe it can work or that it’s right to spend taxpayers money on it. This allegation that the government gave the idea to the consortium is groundless nonsense.”

A spokesperson for the RSPB said yesterday that the organisation regretted the government decision to exclude Armstrong-Evans. “It’s a shame that Atkins and Rolls-Royce could not get together with Evans. The engineering community all agree that a reef idea can work. Whereas conventional barrages generate electricity by taking advantage of large differences between high and low tides, both Evans’s reef and the Atkins model need only a few metres’ difference to drive the turbines. The extra power is gained by using more turbines which can work for much longer periods on both the incoming and outgoing tides.”

Adam Morton, head of low carbon technology at Atkins said yesterday: “I can understand how this might look. But Rupert is trying to patent the problem rather than the solution. The way in which water is used is not patentable.”

“We were introduced to Mr Evans by the department of energy and climate change as part of the process. We had a brief meeting and we decided we could not work together. No disclosure of intellectual property took place,” said a Rolls-Royce spokesman.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Setback for Shetland’s windfarm plans

July 29, 2009

From Shetland to the Isle of Wight, feelings run high as plans to transform the UK into a low-carbon economy hit further trouble

Europe’s largest onshore windfarm project has been thrown in severe doubt after the RSPB and official government agencies lodged formal objections to the 150-turbine plan, it emerged today.

The setback adds to the problems facing the government’s ambition to install 10,000 new turbines across the UK by 2020 as part of its plan to cut the carbon emissions causing climate change.

The proposed 550MW windfarm, sprawling across the centre of Shetland’s main island, would add almost 20% to existing onshore wind capacity. But the objectors say the plans could seriously damage breeding sites for endangered birds, including a rare wader, the whimbrel, which was unexpectedly discovered by the windfarm developer’s own environmental survey teams. Other species at risk include the red throated diver, golden plover and merlin.

The RSPB heavily criticised the proposal from Viking Energy after initially indicating it could support the scheme. The RSPB also claims now that installation of the turbines could release significant carbon dioxide from the peat bogs affected, undermining the turbines’ potential to combat global warming.

The group’s fears have been endorsed by the government’s official conservation advisers, Scottish Natural Heritage, and SNH has also objected to the “magnitude” of the scheme, claiming it could kill many of these birds through collisions with the 145-metre-high structures.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), which oversees pollution and waste laws in Scotland, has also formally objected, making it inevitable the scheme will now go to a full public inquiry and intensifying pressure on the developers to alter the scale of the project.

In a detailed critique of the proposal, Sepa has asked Viking Energy to significantly rethink its plans to cut out and dump up to 1m cubic metres of peat during construction, and asked ministers to impose tough conditions to protect local water quality and freshwater species .

Bill Manson, a director of Viking Energy, the community-owned company which is collaborating with Scottish and Southern Energy on the scheme, said it would be prepared to negotiate. “I believe there’s a dialogue to be had, which will assuage their fears, I hope,” he said.

A Scottish government consultation on the £800m scheme closed yesterday, with more than 3,600 of Shetland’s 21,000 islanders signing a petition calling for the project to be scrapped.

The Shetland Amenity Trust, a local heritage and archaeological charity, and one of Scotland’s major countryside access organisations, the John Muir Trust, have also objected, arguing that the proposal would have a “hugely damaging detrimental impact” on the treeless, hilly landscape.

The dispute has highlighted the conflicts arising over the siting of major windfarms on land, between the need to exploit the most windy locations and the desire to preserve the rural environment.

The government wants to have an additional 6,000 onshore and 4,000 offshore wind turbines installed by 2020 to meet its legally binding target of generating 15% of all energy from renewable sources . There are currently about 2,400 turbines.

Ed Milliband, the energy and climate change secretary, has set out an ambitious plan to transform the UK to a low-carbon economy.

But the plans to change the planning system to make windfarm approvals quicker and give priority to renewable projects in granting national grid connections prompted significant criticism on the siting and cost of windfarms.

Within a week, the newly formed National Association of Wind Action Groups pledged to campaign against the harmful impact of wind turbine developments on communities and landscapes. Another blow came from the decision of Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas to close the UK’s only blade manufacturing plant on the Isle of Wight. The company said the UK wind market was not growing fast enough and that projects had been slowed down by planning objections.

Existing windfarms have 3,000MW of capacity, but another 9,600MW is in the planning process. A further 6,000MW has planning permission but no funding and on Monday the government announced a £1bn loan package to try to fill that funding gap. It argues that the UK has the largest potential for wind power in Europe and already has more offshore wind installed than any other country.

Miliband has said that climate change poses a greater threat to landscapes than windfarms and that opposing them should be “socially unacceptable”.

Scotland is already home to more than half the UK’s onshore wind capacity and Shetland is a key location. The islands reputedly experience the highest and most consistent wind speeds of any comparable place on earth. One small turbine at Lerwick, known as Betsy, is believed to be the world’s most productive, reaching 59% of its potential output.

The Viking scheme, if approved by ministers, would alone generate a fifth of Scotland’s domestic electricity needs and earn up to £37m a year in profits for Shetland. Manson said yesterday that the scheme had to be large-scale for the energy regulator and National Grid to agree to lay the £300m interconnector cable that would carry the electricity to the mainland. A scheme even half its current size would not be commercially viable.

But opponents claim that the scheme is far too large and that, with a further 62 miles of access roads, it would significantly affect a fifth of the main island’s desolate interior and industrialise the landscape.

“We can’t simply build our way out of climate change,” said John Hutchison, chairman of the John Muir Trust.

“It is both cheaper and less destructive to reduce energy need and waste, rather than cover the wild landscapes that define Scotland and its people with wind turbines.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Isle of Wight police prepare for activists after cancellation of green festival

July 28, 2009

Thousands of Big Green Gathering ticketholders urged to show support at Vestas wind turbine factory

Police in the Isle of Wight are bracing themselves for the possible arrival of thousands of environmental activists who are heading to the island in a show of support for workers facing the closure of the Vestas wind turbine factory.

Around 25 Vestas workers are continuing their eight-day occupation of the the plant.

Hundreds of protesters have already flocked to the island in support of the staff, camping nearby in a show of solidarity that has been described as a new “red and green” coalition.

Their numbers could surge tomorrow after 15,000 festival-goerswith tickets for the now-cancelled Big Green Gathering festival in Somerset (BGG), were urged to head to the demonstration instead.

Throughout today blogs, emails, Facebook messages and Twitter feeds have carried messages urging those who would have attended BGG, a four-day event featuring music, debates and practical green living demonstrations, to book ferry tickets to the Isle of Wight .

There was no official call from BGG’s organisers for disappointed ticketholders to divert to the Vestas protest, but the idea has spread quickly via word of mouth among green activists.

Some are calling the mass gathering in the Isle of Wight “Vestival”, a play on the music festival Bestival that takes place on the island in September.

The BGG gathering was cancelled on Sunday, after Mendip district council and Somerset police sought a high-court injunction to prevent the family-friendly event from going ahead, claiming that it posed a safety risk.

The festival’s directors have accused the police of taking a politically motivated decision to shut down the festival, possibly because it woud have raised money for the protest group Climate Camp, which is planning a major demonstration in London next month.

A convoy of several hundred Climate Camp activists are today heading to the Isle of Wight with the food, drink and camping equipment they had intended to use at the BGG. They will be joined by activists from other environmental groups, including Campaign Against Climate Change, Climate Rush and Plane Stupid.

A group called Workers Climate Action, composed of socialist environmental campaigners, has already been on the island for almost a month, and helped to persuade staff that occupying the factory was the right course of action.

“We don’t want to overburden the people already there, but the the message we’re getting back is the more the merrier,” said Steve Milligan, of Climate Camp.

“The idea is we’ll be self-sufficient. There are various bits of grass where we can put up some tents .”

Many of the new influx of protesters are planning to arrive in time for a court hearing at Newport tomorrow, in which Vestas Windsystems will seek permission to regain possession of the plant. The company says its factory must close, with a loss of 625 staff, because the UK wind turbine market is not growing fast enough. The hearing could set in train the legal process allowing bailiffs to remove protesters from the site, which is scheduled to close on Friday.

Energy secretary Ed Miliband, who was heckled by Vestas protesters in Oxford yesterday , announced the UK government has awarded £6m to Vestas Technology, to help fund a turbine research centre at the Newport site.

However, the Danish firm said this would not prevent the closure of the Isle of Wight factory. Vestas plans to move production to Colorado in the United States.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns

July 28, 2009

New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.

The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.

The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind’s research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record.

The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind’s paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December’s climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.

Bob Henson, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said: “To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate change isn’t happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter.” Temperature highs and lows

1998

Hottest year of the millennium

Caused by a major El Niño event. The climate phenomenon results from warming of the tropical Pacific and causes heatwaves, droughts and flooding around the world. The 1998 event caused 16% of the world’s coral reefs to die.

1957

Most sunspots in a year since 1778

The sun’s activity waxes and wanes on an 11-year cycle. The late 1950s saw a peak in activity and were relatively warm years for the period.

1601

Coldest year of the millennium

Ash from the huge eruption the previous year of a Peruvian volcano called Huaynaputina blocked out the sun. The volcanic winter caused Russia’s worst famine, with a third of the population dying, and disrupted agriculture from China to France.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Water-saving measures could cut household emissions by 30%, report finds

July 22, 2009

Energy Saving Trust and Environment Agency report estimates simple water-saving measures could save a typical household £225 per year

Britons could save 30% of the carbon emissions associated with heating water at home by following simple advice such as lagging pipes and using low-flow taps, according to energy experts.

They estimate that installing just a few water-saving measures could save a typical household £225 per year on combined water and energy bills.

In a joint report launched today, the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and the Environment Agency examined the carbon impact of domestic water use in the UK. They concluded that heating water would continue to be a major source of carbon emissions from homes in the future unless urgent action was taken to reduce demand and the associated energy losses from inefficient boilers.

Energy use in homes accounts for more than a quarter of the UK’s carbon emissions. In a bid to reduce overall emissions by 80% by 2050, the government has announced plans to reduce the footprint of homes by retrofitting existing homes with energy efficiency measures, such as loft and cavity-wall insulation, and wants all new homes built from 2016 to be zero-carbon.

But the energy used to heat water, around 23% of an average home’s carbon footprint, will not be tackled by the government’s proposals. “If the drive toward zero-carbon homes goes as planned, by the time you get to a really energy-efficient home, the energy required for space heating is going to be quite small, but unless you do something about water use, that’s going to dominate and will account for over 70% of carbon emissions,” said Magda Styles, water and waste strategy manager at the EST.

But she said very simple methods of water and energy efficiency could take out 5% of the emissions associated with water, equivalent to taking 600,000 cars off the road.

Water-saving technology and sustainibility standards for new homes have helped to reduce wastage but the growing popularity and frequency with which people use power showers means that Britons still use the same amount of water today as they did 10 years ago – around 150 litres per person per day.

“Water is a precious resource and as the government outlined in last week’s low carbon transition plan we urgently need to cut carbon emissions to help reduce the impact of future climate change,” said Ian Barker, head of water at the Environment Agency.

The EST report suggests taking showers instead of baths, retro-fitting showers and taps with low-flow heads, lagging hot water pipes, washing dishes in a bowl rather than under a running hot tap and installing a water meter. “It’s been documented quite well that metering reduces water consumption by up to 15%,” she said. “We’re not trying to make people endure hardship and do away with hot water. In most cases, it’s a simple prevention of waste.”

According to the report, changing a 16 litre per minute shower head with a six litre per minute head, and using a 4.5 litre toilet instead of nine litre one, could result in annual savings of 67m3 of water, 371kg CO2 and £225 for an average household.

Getting beyond 30% reductions in CO2 for individual households would be possible, said Styles, by additionally replacing old washing machines and dishwashers with more energy and water-efficient models and more conscious behaviour change that minimised use and heating of water.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Wind turbine factory sit-in workers accuse Ed Miliband of green failure

July 22, 2009

The government’s green credentials were called into question today by workers staging a sit-in at a wind turbine factory that is due to close this month.

Around 30 workers facing redundancy took over the management suite at the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight. Police reinforcements were brought in but workers claimed they would not leave until the government stepped in to save the factory and more than 500 jobs.

One of those barricaded in with sleeping bags and enough food to last days, gave his name as Michael. He argued that it was “crazy” for energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband to be making “statement after statement” about green energy but standing by as the factory closed down. “It would be a tiny step financially to keep this factory open, but it would be a huge statement about the government’s commitment to the green economy,” he said.

The Newport factory is due to close at the end of the month. The Danish company that owns it has refused to comment on the protest, but when the cuts were announced it cited a “lack of political initiatives” and an obstructive planning system.

The protest comes soon after Miliband claimed the green revolution will create 1.2 million jobs by 2020. A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “The UK has a strong future in wind energy. In our renewable energy strategy we earmarked up to £120m to support investment in the development of the offshore wind industry.”

• This article was amended on Wednesday 22 July 2009. Ed Miliband is energy and climate change secretary, not environment secretary. This has been corrected.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

London to Cardiff rail line will be electrified to cut carbon footprint

July 21, 2009

One of Britain’s busiest rail lines is to be electrified in a move that will introduce greener and more reliable services for millions of passengers.

The government is finalising plans to transform the Great Western mainline as part of a drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport. The programme will involve installing hundreds of miles of electric cables as well as alterations to tunnels, bridges and stations on one of Britain’s oldest rail routes.

An announcement could come as soon as Thursday, although the financing is still being put in place. The Department for Transport (DfT) and Network Rail, owner of Britain’s rail infrastructure, have discussed electrifying the route from London Paddington to Cardiff, taking in Reading and Bristol, as well as the popular commuter route from London to Oxford.

However, the programme is expected to be carried out in phases over the next decade in order to minimise disruption.

Britain lags behind many of its European counterparts in electrical coverage of its rail system, with only 40% of the 20,000-mile network electrified. Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, has pledged to electrify swaths of the network, led by Great Western and the Midland mainline from St Pancras to Sheffield, in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport by 14% by 2020.

Train operators said electrification would bring quicker and more reliable services for passengers, as well as giving rail a green edge over car and air travel. Michael Roberts, chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, said: “Electrification brings with it the dual benefits of helping to make rail services more attractive to customers and drawing them away from cars and planes. It also relies on lower-carbon sources of energy.” First Great Western, the main operator on the Great Western network, carries 84 million passengers a year.

According to Network Rail, the diesel trains that travel on the Great Western route emit at least double the carbon dioxide output per mile of an electric train. The government-backed company has also calculated that it will cost £800,000 a track mile just to erect the cabling. Once work on tunnels, bridges and culverts is added in electrifying the 118-mile stretch from London to Bristol could cost £380m, according to Network Rail.

It is understood that the DfT and Network Rail have discussed funding the work through an increase in Network Rail’s borrowings. Network Rail’s debt is underwritten by the state and the government will pay off the interest over a number of decades, minimising the immediate impact on the taxpayer.

Stephen Glaister, professor of transport and infrastructure at Imperial College London, said the benefits of electrifying thousands of miles of railway track would be undermined if trains were not powered by energy produced from low-carbon sources such as nuclear plants or wind farms. Otherwise, electrification would simply increase demand for electricity from coal- and gas-powered plants, he added. “The government has to clarify where the electricity is coming from. In a world where nuclear power is declining and renewables cannot fill the gap, where else is it going to come from apart from burning more coal and gas?”

Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, said last week: “Transport accounts for a significant amount of our domestic emissions. Therefore decarbonising this sector has to be front and centre of efforts to meet our obligations and commitments to tackle climate change.”

The government is also encouraging greater production, and acquisition, of electric and hybrid cars as part of its low-carbon policy.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Staff occupy Isle of Wight wind plant in protest against closure

July 21, 2009

Workers staged an occupation of a wind turbine factory last night to protest against the imminent closure of the plant and the loss of hundreds of jobs.

About 25 workers entered the administration block of the Vestas Wind Systems factory in Newport, Isle of Wight, at around 7.30pm and vowed to remain there until the government discussed their proposal to save it from closure by nationalising the plant.

In April the Danish firm announced that the factory, which employs 525 people, as well as another in Southampton, employing 100 people, would close because of a lack of demand.

Vestas, which is the world’s biggest wind energy group and recently reported a quarterly sales rise of 59%, up to €1.1bn (£950m), cited a slowdown in demand when it announced the closure of the factory. It blamed a number of factors, including the weakness of the pound and “a lack of political initiatives”.

The Vestas chief executive, Ditlev Engel, said building wind turbines in Britain was “extremely time-consuming and extremely complicated”. He added: “In the UK, nimbyism is a huge challenge.”

A worker inside the factory, who gave his name only as Michael, hit out at what he claimed were double standards in the government’s approach to low-carbon industries.

“It’s crazy for Ed Miliband [the environment secretary] to be making statement after statement about green energy and green jobs and at the same time this factory is being closed.

“It would be a tiny step financially to keep this factory open, but it would be a huge statement about the government’s commitment to the green economy. Just as they could not afford to let the banks fail, they can’t afford to let this fail. It’s about the history of humanity.”

Several police officers gathered outside the factory last night but told the protesters they did not intend to force them out. “This is a peaceful protest,” Michael said. “We got enough supplies to last a while … as long as you like crisps.”

A spokesman for the Campaign Against Climate Change pressure group said: “We give the workers our full support. The government should take over the plant and restart production and if there currently is not enough demand for wind turbines, then it should build more wind farms itself.”

No one from Vestas management was available for comment last night.

One of the workers involved in the sit-in, who gave his name as Dave, described today how the sit-in had begun.

“We took the upper floor, the management floor, the hub, where all of the planning gets done. There was an open door, we took our opportunity. There were no staff in. We filtered in, locked the doors and took it from there.
“We’ve slept, we’ve eaten, morale’s quite high. Everything seems to be going fantastic. We are well prepared. External supplies coming in have been stopped by the management. They seem to want to starve us out. We’ve got enough to last us a couple of days.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Secret ‘safe havens’ to save British crayfish from extinction

July 21, 2009

Breeding programme begins in south-west of England to save white-clawed crayfish from being wiped out by American signal crayfish

A breeding programme has begun to save Britain’s native crayfish from being wiped out by foreign species.

The rare white-clawed crayfish will be transported into secret safe havens in an attempt to halt the takeover by the more aggressive, disease-carrying American signal crayfish.

The American signal crayfish were introduced in the UK 20 years ago and have wiped out almost 95% of the native species.

Conservationists have warned that the white-clawed crayfish faces extinction from UK waters within 30 years unless new populations can be created in safe, uncontaminated waters.

The South West White Clawed Crayfish Conservation Group has begun trapping British crayfish and transferring them to “safe haven” breeding sanctuaries.

These so-called “ark sites” are freshwater pools at locations in the south-west, where the population has been hardest hit.

The £210,000 project will run for two years and is funded by Natural England. It is led by the Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation in partnership with the Avon Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency.

Jen Nightingale, the UK conservation officer for the foundation, said: “White-clawed crayfish were abundant and easy to find until the American signal crayfish species was introduced to UK waters in recent years.

“The American species not only out-competes native crayfish for resources, it also carries a disease, the crayfish plague, which is fatal to UK crayfish.

“We now believe that three quarters of native crayfish populations in the Bristol Avon catchment area have been wiped out.

The team is moving the native crayfish to two isolated water bodies that have little chance of being affected by the American species. “We want to keep these locations secret to prevent people visiting the areas and risk spreading crayfish plague – which can be carried on damp equipment and boots as well as in water.

“People who visit rivers, ponds and lakes can help prevent the spread of disease by washing and drying equipment after use.” Nightingale would also like members of the public to report crayfish sightings to the Environment Agency.

The first relocation day involved staff and volunteers from Bristol zoo, the Avon Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency, who moved a number of crayfish in chilled containers from south Gloucestershire to two new sites in Somerset and north Somerset. Similar schemes are also planned for sites in Wiltshire, Devon and Bristol. The most successful breeding programme for the species was begun in 2003 in the Yorkshire Dales.

Pete Sibley, from the Environment Agency, said: “It was important not to harm the resident ecology when transferring the crayfish to new sites and exhaustive tests had been undertaken to assess the new habitat and ensure that there was a high water quality, tree cover with leaf litter, and rocks and boulders for refuge.

“This type of rescue mitigates the threat from signal crayfish by actively conserving natives through seeking out safe refuge sites.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →