United Kingdom

Direct-action protesters in the U.K. are focusing on climate change

A protester at England’s Didcot power station contemplates the changing landscape. Photo: Kate Davison/Greenpeace It’s half an hour or so after the end of Britain’s biggest-ever protest against climate change, and I’m still hanging out in Trafalgar Square. A few groups of kids are milling around, and a couple of anarchists have set up a […]

Why everyone should be allowed to love food with unrestrained glee

I spend hours at a time in the kitchen, I approach my morning coffee with a quasi-religious fervor, and the attention I grant beer and wine selection can border on the Talmudic. Am I a food snob? Diverse authorities — including my mother, a certain Grist writer, and several friends — have claimed as much. […]

Peter Madden ponders the upsides and downsides of CO2 offsetting

This is the second installment of a monthly column on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe, from Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, Britain's leading sustainable development charity. Read the first column here.

We have gone offset-crazy in the U.K. Open any newspaper or magazine at the moment and you'll see full-page advertisements from oil giant BP offering the chance to "neutralize the impact of your car's CO2 emissions."

Buy a new Range Rover, book a holiday with First Choice, or pay for a flight with British Airways and you are given the chance to offset. Even this year's World Cup declared itself "carbon neutral."

Government has got in on the act too, with a clutch of departments promising to offset their impacts.

For some environmentalists, though, this is all a dangerous distraction from the need to reduce emissions at source. Kevin Anderson, a climate-change scientist, argues, "Offsetting is a dangerous delaying tactic because it helps us to avoid tackling that task. It helps us to sleep well at night when we shouldn't sleep well at night."

Charles Liesenberg, an offset provider, argues the opposite: that because climate change is a global problem, "it doesn't matter where you reduce emissions, as long as you do it."

Brit’s Eye View: Britain’s Conservatives challenge Labour for mantle of greenest party

This is the first installment of a new monthly column on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe, from Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, Britain's leading sustainable development charity.

Something strange and wonderful is happening in British politics. American readers, prepare to be envious: both of our main political parties are actively competing to be seen as the greenest. What is perhaps even more interesting is that it's the Conservatives (a traditionally right-wing, pro-business, and tax-cutting party more or less equivalent to your Republicans) who are currently winning.

In a recent opinion poll, people were asked, "From what you have seen or heard, which of these three politicians as prime minister would do most to protect the environment?" Only a quarter opted for Tony Blair, and 18 percent for his likely successor as head of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, while 33 percent chose David Cameron , the Conservative leader. It is difficult to imagine a comparable result in the United States.

The change is mainly down to the 39-year-old Cameron himself (pictured at right). Dave, as he prefers to be called, is a slick, approachable, and media-friendly politician. Indeed, he has many of the qualities -- of freshness, of being in touch with ordinary people's aspirations -- that made Tony Blair so popular a decade ago.

Cameron has already shown a strong personal commitment to environmental issues. He rides a bicycle to the House of Commons, he grows organic carrots, and he is fitting a wind turbine to his house.

British enviros worry Gordon Brown won’t be green

With British PM Tony Blair on his way out sometime in the next year -- though he won't be pinned down on a date -- Chancellor of the Exchequer (aka Finance Minister) Gordon Brown is poised to assume leadership of the Labour Party and hence the British government. What will this mean for the environment? The British press is starting to assess.

Sarah Mukherjee of BBC writes that greens haven't been impressed with Blair's follow-through on efforts to fight climate change, but they're "even more worried about Gordon Brown":

Leaders agree to share technology; carbon-trading system a possibility, not a done deal

The AP overstated the extent of the climate agreement announced today between British PM Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (and thus Daily Grist overstated it too). Now that the deal's been officially unveiled, a few clarifications:

The two didn't agree to launch a new trans-Atlantic carbon-trading market, though they will look into the possibility. Rather, they said the U.K. and California would cooperate on research into cleaner fuels and technologies. Writes the San Francisco Chronicle, "aspects of the agreement include jointly studying the economic impacts of global climate change, collaborating on technology research -- including studying the effects of California's effort to create a 'hydrogen highway' touted by Schwarzenegger -- and establishing regular exchanges between scientists in both places." Not so bold, but a nice symbolic gesture at least.

The paper burden

Oh, this is just too good. The leader of the UK conservative party, David Cameron, has been bragging about his green credentials lately (remember, they're sane in the UK, so they demand that all their leaders have green cred), and urging other MPs to change their personal behavior to demonstrate green values.

Oops:

David Cameron was forced to backtrack on his personal green credentials yesterday by admitting that he traveled to work by bicycle not to cut carbon emissions, but because he found it enjoyable.

The Conservative leader had to switch tack after it emerged that his car followed him carrying briefing papers and his shoes on the days that he cycled from his Notting Hill home to Westminster.

Hee hee. But it gets better:

Get smart

This is a bit far afield, perhaps, but the British press is reporting that new drivers in the UK will soon have to take an "eco-driving" test in order to get their license. The UK initiative is modelled after a Dutch program that claims that smarter driving habits -- slower acceleration, less braking, lower top speeds -- can shave gas consumption by a third or more.

Last year, after a brief (and undeserved) flap over they Toyota Prius's worse-than-advertised mileage, ardent hybrid enthusiasts began circulating advice about how to maximize the vehicles' efficiency. So it's good to see some effort to do the same thing for the 99+ percent of cars on the road that aren't hybrids.

Once the global capital of bad food, London shows the way forward.

Since I started writing for Gristmill, I've tried to make the point that our food system amounts to an ongoing environmental disaster, and deserves much more attention from greens.

Over in London, Mayor Ken Livingstone is putting that idea into action. As the Guardian reports, Livingstone recently declared that "The energy and emissions involved in producing food account for 22% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions."

Ponder that number for a minute. Rather than obsess about hybrids and switchgrass and CAFE standards -- worthy topics, to be sure -- it might make sense to push for policies that make food production more eco-friendly. And Livingstone is doing just that.

"I want London to set a standard for other cities around the world to follow in reducing its own contribution to climate change. How we deal with food will play an important role in this," he told the Guardian.

(Thanks to the Organic Consumers Association for bringing this story, which came out way back on Jan. 7, to my attention.)