Taking on the greenies - by Richard... Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Taking on the greenies - by Richard... Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Despite the excitement (not) over the general election, the work of government goes on, demonstrating if nothing else the irrelevance of most MPs in the process. And confronting ministers is the knotty problem of what to do with South Africa. 

We are not referring to the murder of TerraBlanche, but something altogether more serious – whether to support a World Bank loan for a new coal-fired power station in South Africa.

This issue has been grumbling on for some time, but emerged last monthwhen it was first publicly revealed that the United States and Britain were threatening to withhold support for a $3.75 billion loan, vitally needed to get the project off the ground.

Now, with the decision due this week, it has come to a head, with the UK government wilting under sustained attack from green groups, who are demanding that the loan is blocked.

South Africa desperately needs more electricity capacity. Its existing system is already under pressure and in 2008 came close to collapsing. Rolling blackouts had to be imposed, causing massive damage to the productive economy. As a major coal producer, it made sense to go for coal and it Eskom, the power utility, is planning a 4,800-megawatt coal-fired plant at Medupi in the northern Limpopo region.

But the risk of economic damage and hardship if the project is blocked is of little concern to the likes of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid. They argue that the 25 million tons of carbon dioxide the plant would produce pose a risk to the world's climate that outweighs the benefits of the secure electricity it would supply.

They have been lobbying behind the scenes to try to persuade Britain to vote against the loan and have held meetings in recent days with Gareth Thomas, the minister for international development, Michael Jacobs, the prime minister's special adviser on climate change, and Susanna Moorhead, head of the World Bank in Britain. 

This puts the government rather on the spot. It has already supported the development of the $4.14 billion 4GW Mundra power project in India's Gujarat State – another coal-fired plant - and in fact paid for the development work which would allow the owners, Tata Power, to claim carbon credits under the UN's CDM.

What is particularly problematical here is the timing of the general election, with green groups poised to make a huge fuss which could damage the government's green credentials. Having originally supported the proposal, it is now wavering, and may yet cave in when the vote is taken tomorrow.

And just for once, the UK's vote actually matters for, under the Obama administration, the US has issued new guidelines on the funding of coal plants in developing countries. These direct US representatives to encourage "no or low carbon energy" options prior to a coal-based choice, and to assist borrowers in finding additional resources to make up the costs if an alternative to coal is more expensive.

On this basis, the US is likely to abstain from the vote, leaving the UK in the hot seat, in a classic lose-lose situation. The World Bank has pointed out that there is no alternative source of power which could provide enough capacity fast enough to avoid widespread power cuts. 

It is urging Britain and other contributors to vote for the loan and warns starkly of an energy crisis across southern Africa. "Without energy," it says, "countries face very limited or no economic growth: factories and businesses cannot function efficiently; hospitals and schools cannot operate fully or safely; basic services that people in rich countries take for granted cannot be offered."

Thus, if Britain blocks the loan, it will be seen to be hampering third world development, with profound humanitarian consequences. If it approves it, it will attract the wrath of the greenies. And it does not stop there. Since any alternatives would cost at least twice as much, if not considerably more, Britain would be more or less obliged to cough up a substantial amount of cash to help meet the extra costs, if it block the loan.

Meanwhile, France, with ambitions of selling its next generations nuclear power plants to South Africa, is supporting the application, putting two major EU members at odds, all in the context of official EU policy being to support "low carbon" development.

Norway, though, is in an even worse position. Its ministry of the environment is urging its government to reject the loan, while the ministry of foreign affairs and the agency for development cooperation want to support it.

But, while the various World Bank members are tying themselves in knots, none seem to be asking questions of groups such as Christian Aid, which seems to have elevated climate change above that of the humanitarian issues on which they were founded.

However, this has not stopped Pravin Gordhan, the South African finance minister, from speaking out. He is accusing green groups of trying to impose their environmental priorities on a country lacking the secure electricity that is taken for granted in the developed world. 

"It is regrettable," he says, "that . . . developed countries and [a] very small group of NGOs in South Africa are putting their environmental concerns, which can't be immediately addressed, above the economic needs of South Africa and our need to grow the economy so that all the people benefit." 

Offering no concessions to the greenie climate agenda, he states flatly, "For now, not only South Africa but developing countries more generally will have to rely on coal." 

For decades now, the greenies have been trying to convince the world that they and developing nations have a common agenda. But now, the cracks are beginning to show, big time. When the decision comes to be made on Thursday, therefore, there will be a lot more at stake than a single coal-fired power plant. Lines have been drawn and the World Bank – not for the first time - has become the battlefield.

How interesting it is though that the South Africans are prepared to take on the greenies, when our own more "sophisticated" politicians roll over and give them everything they demand – unless we see different on Thursday.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Thirty days of theatre - by Richard...

Discerning readers (and we have no other kind) might notice a similarity in tone between Hefferand this blog. 

A significant proportion of the electorate ... will have been effectively disfranchised. Our understandable boredom is tempered by a frustration that none of the main three parties seems to want to represent what so many of us believe in, says the man.

So, we get thirty days of theatre but, he says, the only thing you won't hear is the truth. Roll on 7 May. 

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Print ready

From the horse's mouth - by Richard... Tuesday, April 06, 2010

At least, I think it's his mouth ... the one and only Geoffrey Lean, who tells us:

Amid all the clashing of policies that we can expect over the next four weeks, one important set of issues – though much debated of late – will remain uncontentious, at least among the major parties. Despite all the furore over climate science following the hacking and hyping of the University of East Anglia e-mails – and despite apparent growing scepticism among the public – all the three main parties fully accept that humanity is causing global warming and that urgent action must be taken to combat it.

They also agree on something truly radical: that future economic growth must be increasingly green, not just to minimize climate change, but as the best way to ensure sustainable prosperity. This is an extraordinarily rapid development: at the last general election, just five years ago, the idea was scarcely on the political map. But now the only real disagreement among the main parties is about who is doing most to bring about the low carbon economy.

Gazing at the torrent of election coverage, as I have been doing most of the day, one gets the feeling of looking down from on high at a newly-exposed termites' nest ... frenetic activity, but very little purpose. And, from that height, they all look the same, rather as Lean has noticed.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Print ready

Winning for Britain? - by Richard...

Dear [insert name here]

This is it. After all the dithering, this unelected Prime Minister has been forced by the law of the land to call the election he has put off for so long.

There is a huge choice in this election - one that affects the life of every man, woman and child in this country. It's a choice between five more years of Gordon Brown's tired government making things worse. Or change with the Conservatives - who have the energy, leadership and values to get Britain moving again.

It's a choice between a tax on jobs that kills the recovery, or dealing with our waste and debts so we can grow the economy. And it's a choice between a big government that kills off responsibility, or a big society that breathes life into our communities.

We've got an intense few weeks ahead of us. But, as I've just told our fantastic team at Campaign Headquarters, one day we'll all be able to look back on the time we were part of the movement that made 2010 the year of change.

Just take a second to think about it. In the next thirty days, we've got the chance to do what we haven't done for over thirty years. We've got a once in a generation chance to form a fresh government that really can deliver the change we need.

Every leaflet you deliver, every pound you donate, every email you send, every friend you speak to - every extra little thing you do can make the decisive difference between winning and losing.

We can't give Gordon Brown a second chance to ruin the country. So let's get out there and win it for Britain.








GENERAL ELECTION THREAD