Climate Change - SprintBio - Distibutors of environmentally friendly boilers, burners and heat pumps

There are some pretty contradictory measures coming out of Westminster these days. Just as it looks as if the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is to announce the forthcoming expansion of Heathrow’s runway capacity (which will see annnual flight numbers jump from around 480,000 to over 700,000), we are also learning that the government last night moved to tighten its commitment to meeting an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050.

I am beginning to wonder if there is any communication within different government departments at all these days, or if everyone is blindly running around trying to meet individual centrally imposed targets, without much regard for long term consequences…

It seems pretty clear that something will have to give here. It is blindingly obvious that such reckless airport expansion will be yet another jigsaw piece in the bigger environmental catastrophe, no matter how much more efficient planes get (I strongly doubt that using a lighter paint on the outer shell of a jet will offset damage of the extra 220,000+ flights).

Geoff Hoon is talking about congestion and economics as the two justifications for the expansion plans, conveniently forgetting that both are only short-term arguments while the environmental ramifications of the decision will have far more long-lasting consequences.

Yes Heathrow is congested - and yes the expansion will greatly improve the passenger experience of using the airport. Except we are forgetting that we should be finding ways to discourage flying and working towards a reduction in the industry’s carbon footprint so that we can avoid ruining the planet, in case Geoff doesn’t remember. I don’t think saving 30 mins in a security queue when flying on holiday to the Canaries outweighs worsening the risk of environmental catastrophe…

But it’s not all about convenience says Geoff; the expansion will help attract more industry and create new jobs, which ultimately is the most important thing in these times of economic crisis and it is this that is the most overwhelming factor in the decision. Except that again such gains will be only short-lived as the inherent unsustainability of attracting industry dependent on such infrastucture will later become evident. What happens when we really, really have to face up to the environmental consequences? (i.e. when even short term economics will not be an adequate counter-argument).

It seems to me the logic of Hoon’s thinking is basically to bury our heads further into the sand on the issue of climate change - because other matters seem more pressing today. I am not criticising Hoon for wanting and finding ways to create jobs or boost the country’s infrastucture; my only complaint is the laziness and inherent short-sightedness of the solution he is currently in the process of approving. Not to mention the fact that the move is akin to political suicide when public opinion strongly opposes the expansion - but that is merely his, and Labour’s, loss (the Conservatives are opposed to the plans and look set to reap the electoral rewards for this in the next general election).

In the current economic situation the argument of economy over environment is mightily attractive to many, and indeed a government which appeared to be more concerned with the latter would probably not stand much chance in the next general election. But the point is that we have arrived in this economic mess because we made stupid, short-term decisions for a quick gain. Surely we are not about to see yet another such move with regard to Heathrow? The lesson is that sustainable development and growth is the only way out. If it takes a little longer than the quick-fix then so be it; most people would rather this than face such a crisis again in 10 years (or probably even sooner). In short, pretending climate change isn’t as big an issue as the economy, or even continuing to see the two as unconnected, is not only foolish but also downright reckless.

Dejan Levi

NB To find out more about the campaign against Heathrow expansion visit the ‘NO campaign’ website at www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/

Last week UK Coal announced a forthcoming joint venture with Peel Energy which will see 14 former colliery sites owned by the company used to erect 54 wind turbines, generating up to 133 megawatts of electricity per hour (enough to power 80,000 homes). Unsurprisingly UK Coal shares jumped 10% in response to the news - leaving me wondering why more energy companies aren’t applying similar tactics to beat the recession?

The fact of the matter is that by demonstrating a greater degree of long-term viability and preparation for the energy markets of tomorrow, UK Coal is financially a far more attractive prospect for traders and shareholders. The investment is sounder now that the company is unveiling moves that will help it compete succesfully in coming years, and in doing so is also improving its immediate current standing in a tricky situation.

The lesson seems pretty clear - obviously implementing such moves is not easy, with credit so unobtainable and cash for new ventures all but dried up, but if companies can find a way to finance such initiatives they will reap the rewards not only tomorrow, but also today. UK Coal for example is now in a better position to build on the positive shares bounce with more money in the company coffers than before - the second step will now be easier as the company tries to move forward.

Cutting jobs and closing down factories/plants/offices is another often used crisis-busting tactic, and one that often brings about a short-term recovery in share prices when times are tough (though sadly for those whose jobs are sacrificed this is of course little consolation). Sometimes such moves can represent a sensible option for companies - though it must be stressed that they represent only short term solutions, and require far more complex new strategic initiatives if a company is to continue to enjoy success in the marketplace. In other words, simply losing money at a slower rate is not an adequate fix for such problems - companies must also address positively why they individually are not performing better, and if required overhaul the nature of their operations for the demands of today.

I am pleased to see UK Coal taking steps to do so last week, and even more pleased that the market has moved to affirm the value of such measures with a share value increase, hopefully acting as a catalyst for spurning other energy companies into realising that, for them at least, the only way out of this recession and into future success, is with positive and effective renewable energy. Those that get the message I feel will be the ones still around and successful ten years from now…

Dejan Levi

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian this week (http://tinyurl.com/4643b9) suggest that the EU council could use the current economic crisis as an excuse for reneging on previous climate change targets and commitments. The council is set to meet this week and will discuss whether to sidestep proposals to increase the EU’s target of a 20% cut in emissions by 2020 to 30% (which will come into effect if a global deal is signed).

The question is why this is even being considered in the first place, and what consequences could we face as a result? Is it not more rational to see this as another exploitation of the public’s fear over the economic crisis (which on a daily basis takes on newly mythical levels of potency in mainstream media reporting), to abandon something which is deeply neccessary but fundamentally politically difficult?

Is the ‘extreme situation’ of the financial crisis not simply being used to reconfigure our notions of what is acceptable in terms of government policy and business practice, and to legitimise failure to meet crucial targets?

Presumably the key tenet of this reasoning is that in the current economic climate we cannot afford to let energy costs increase any further, as people struggle to pay their heating bills this winter. This is a perfectly reasonable concern and must be responsibly addressed.

The idea is that if the climate change commitment is relaxed then EU countries could go ahead with plans to increase coal power generation capacities which in turn would provide cheaper energy so that household bills could be kept down. In theory this would be an effective (and probably popular) short term solution to the economic issue. It all seems perfectly simple and logical…

However the problem is that these exceptional circumstances are acting as an excuse to forget the core facts of climate change - that the cheaper fossil fuel solution brings devastating long-term consequences, something that is now commonly understood in the public domain as indisputable fact. To revert to such solutions essentially amounts to saying; ‘renewables are expensive, let’s just use coal and forget about the environmental issues - it is an economic crisis after all…’

Instead of basically looking at ways to take the easy way out, the EU should be facilitating a more adequate solution. Why not look at subsidy package to help ease the impact of rising household bills over the next few years to quite literally ‘buy’ time to make a significant improvement to renewables capacity?

This whole measure of avoiding targets would no doubt be an effective way of maintaining the status quo (or roughly thereabouts) but the whole problem is that while potentially easier (both for governments and populations) this represents a childish attempt to bury our heads in the sand and hope the problems we face will somehow not be here the day after tomorrow.

Even the 30% cut which is proposed as part of this deal is considered by many experts to be an absolute minimum (and in almost every case only just a stepping stone to further reductions) - so to start wavering at this early stage poses a real threat to a long term process in its infancy. The EU as a leading economic and political institution in the world should surely be focused on leading by example rather than destabalising an essential global effort.

As I write this the meetings will surely be commencing in Brussels for what promises to be a crucial chapter in the future of EU climate change policy and indeed of the world. When the US obstinately obstructed the Kyoto agreement it damaged the entire effort to a degree that set progress back a good few years - for the EU to do similarly now, remembering not only Kyoto but also the increased significance of such a move at this even later stage, would be verging on the criminal were it not so frustratingly and mindlessly short-sighted. We’ll see what decision the next few days brings from Brussels…

Dejan Levi

Ben Caldecott has writen a great piece in this week’s Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/4ej29p) highlighting the fact that daily decisions regarding the environmental impact of our lifestyles are sometimes unnecessarily complicated. Far too often making the green choice is ridiculously unaffordable, time-consuming, or perhaps even impossible.

Like most people I’m prepared to make some effort, but at the same time can only do as much as my free time and finances allow. With this in mind here is a list of 5 policy ideas the government could implement, which would make being green a whole lot easier - starting today (feel free to add your own ideas in the comments below).

1. Subsidise rail and coach travel during periods of school hoidays.

With cheap air travel contributing so much to the climate change problem it seems like a sensible place to begin. Tony Blair controversially said that it was ‘unreasonable’ to expect people to take holidays nearer to home on account of the environment. But the real issue is cost - not climate change. After all it is perfectly logical that a family of four might choose to fly to Spain or Italy for a holiday when a ticket can cost as little as £40, while a train to Cornwall or the Welsh Coast might easily cost upward of £60 per person.

By focusing only on summer holiday periods the scheme could be managable financially and would make the choice of holidaying domestically far more attractive, meaning the greener choice is also the cheaper choice. The scheme could be managed with a ‘Holiday Railcard’ (available on an individual or family basis), much like a Young Person’s Railcard, which can be purchased for a fixed sum (£20?) per year, and grants 50%-off rail fares for example.

2. Increase the subsidies available for domestically produced food.

In doing so such environmentally friendly options (home-grown fruit and veg for example obviously has far fewer food-miles attached than imported food) would be more financially viable - a key factor in consumer choice in the current climate of rising food prices. Such an initiative would have to be managed in accordance with EU rules on protectionism and trade but is easily possible. The subsidies can be granted on the condition of lower wholesale prices being offered by farmers (thereby not simply working to boost farming profits).

3. Grant local councils additional funds to implement plastic recycling.

Most UK local councils now run some sort of recycling scheme, mainly collecting glass, aluminium and paper on a weekly basis. However, due to the higher costs and more complicated processes involved in recyling plastic few councils will touch it. With some degree of investment, plastic collections could also be incorporated into such schemes making it far easier to reduce landfill site impact in countryside areas.

4. Fund free domestic insulation upgrades for pensioners.

With many older people due to be left vulnerable this winter by high heating costs the government is being called on to provide increased winter fuel credits for pensioners. Why not also fund free efficiency assessments and upgrades (if required) so that the problem is tackled on a long term basis rather than on a yearly makeshift level? It would satisfy older people knowing that the problem would not cause fresh anxiety each year, and make the choice of saving on fuel use far more possible.

5. Introduce environmental awareness information into the national curriculum.

Ok, so this one would not reap immediate benefits, but could work to improve the level of education and awareness of young people relating to such matters. It would be perfectly feasable to include a few relevant topics in secondary school science and geography syllabuses for example. In the long run a more clued up population will find it easier to support environmental initiatives, and will be better informed for the choices presented by future challenges.

Such proposals would all require varying degrees of investment, but most would yield cheaper consumer essentials for taxpayers and so could be justifiable from this basic financial level upwards. Not only a step in the right direction, they would also make decisions made at an individual level far easier and go some way towards removing the ridiculous financial and time costs often incurred by those seeking to do the right thing.

Dejan Levi

Spain has recently announced a significant move towards the use of domestic solar water heaters in a bid to improve self-sufficiency and lower rising household bills. The goal is eventually to emulate Israel’s domestic water heating situation where 90% of homes are equipped with such heating systems, meaning that hot water supply has near zero financial and environmental cost. But such countries obviously have quite an advantage over the UK in the solar energy stakes, and alternative solutions must be sought if the UK is to achieve something similar.

It is not that solar heaters are unavailable in the UK - they are - and can provide a significant portion of a household’s water heating energy needs, especially in areas of Southern England. But whichever way you look at it the numbers just can’t match those of Israel and Spain in terms of broadness and scope of viability. Solar water heating has a part to play, but so too must alternative solutions…

The two aspects of approaching the problem involve reducing the amount of water required from a mains supply, and secondly reducing the amount of energy (again from the mains supply) that is required to heat this water.

In order to tackle the initial issue there is a highly viable solution available for UK homes; rainwater harvesting. Such water can be collected either from a large surface such as a building’s roof or from a large ground area, and can be used for flushing toilets, watering gardens or even supplying the washing machine.

With average daily water use in the UK currently at 150 litres per person, rainwater harvesting has a significant part to play in reducing our dependence on mains supplies (not to mention household bills, especially considering the imminent water price increases scheduled for 2010).

The second issue, of water heating, has multiple solutions and should be assessed on an individual basis depending on particulars of location and weather of your area, but the main options involve the aforementioned solar panel systems, to biomass boilers as well as ground and air source heat pumps (more information on these technologies can be found on the ‘case study’ section of this page).

The bottom line is that such technologies will not be suited to installation in all UK homes, but also that at the same time there are many that would benefit financially (in terms of reduced household bills) by adopting such tools, especially in the current climate of rising household bills. Perhaps it is time such moves were no longer considered a shopping or home improvement choice, but rather incorporated into a government housing intiative to inform those who could benefit about what is available and how such changes can be implemented.

The collective environmental benefits would encompass helping meet housing goals of reducing the average UK household’s carbon footprint, with obvious environmental benefits for all, as well as being a more short term crisis solution with regard to the current cash squeeze and climate of rising costs.

Dejan Levi

The issue of sustainable food provision is hotter than ever in the UK as we try to move away from cheap, but actually rather expensive (in terms of environmental impact) food. We have grown used to walking into our supermarkets and seeing all manner of out of season or exotic items lining the aisles; whether it be Florida oranges in December, Spanish tomatoes in January, or even wild Alaskan Salmon and New Zealand lamb to name a few.

But what would one’s diet look like if we tried to adopt a near enough zero food-miles approach to our dinners? (N.B. Strictly speaking zero food miles would require all food to be produced in our back gardens which is perhaps a bit of a stretch - for the purposes of this article, zero food-miles refers to as close to zero as possible - but for someone who still buys, rather than produces, the food they eat).

With this in mind let’s look at which fruit and veg is domestically produced here in the UK.

1. Potatoes are one of the UK’s major arable crops. Sown in April and harvested throughout late summer and autumn, with an average of roughly 82% being used for UK consumption. They provide a versatile basis to many common meals and are available (and affordable) all year round. Apart from counting as one of your five-a-day fruit and veg portions, potatoes are a great source of energy and are low in fat (depending on preparation methods of course)

2. Peas and beans. Planted in either winter or spring, the UK has been growing such crops for over 3000 years, with just over half of today’s harvests being used for livestock feed, and the rest for human consumption. Interestingly perhaps the most common type of bean in UK supermarkets (the navy bean which is used in for baked beans) is not grown domestically but imported. Importantly peas can be a valuable source of iron - especially for vegetarians looking to compensate for the effects of reduced meat (and hence iron) intake.

Other notable, but less significant (in terms of land involved) crops are:

3. Cabbages and Brussel sprouts - High in Vitamin C and amino acids (which have great anti-inflammatory benefits).
4. Carrots - As well as Vitamin A (beneficial for vision), carrots are high in anti-oxidants and dietary fibre.
5. Turnips - High in Vitamin C.
6. Cauliflowers - Like brocolli and cabbage, cauliflowers are high in several phytochemicals, including sulforaphane - a beneficial anti-cancer compound.
7. Broccolli - Like peas a great source of iron, and sulforaphane (see above).
8. Lettuces - High in Vitamin A (improves vision) and folic acid.

As for fruit, the UK mainly produces currants, strawberries, blackberries and gooseberries, as well as cucumbers and tomatoes (often considered vegetables due to their ’savoury’ nature - but technically speaking the presence of seeds places them squarely in the fruit category) - all in all more than enough variety for an interesting and balanced diet. Similarly with regard to meat production there is plenty of domestic lamb, beef and pork produced locally, as well as abundant fish supplies such as Scottish Salmon, or trout and mackerel. Such options are drastically more environmentally friendly than the aforementioned Alaskan Salmon, and New Zealand lamb options.

As more and more people take an interest in the nutritional aspects of the food they buy, as well as the environmental and social impacts of producing it, it seems there has never been a better time to consider reducing our intake of exotic imported food and instead focus on developing a rounded, balanced and healthy zero (ish) food miles diet.

With some effective planning and raised awareness it seems it is not only possible, but also not at all difficult, to satisfy both the body’s nutritional, and the appetite’s imaginative, needs while reducing the environmental impact of enjoying our dinners here in the UK.

Dejan Levi

Last week American oil billionaire T.Boone Pickens added his name to the ever growing list of US politicians and businessmen calling for the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling in the US. George Bush and Dick Cheney have both also called for the ban to be lifted, but thus far the Democrat-controlled Congress has blocked such plans from becoming a reality.

Perhaps even more worryingly; some 60% of Americans would be in support of such a move according to a recent survey by Reuters. Pickens has talked of the imminence of the $300 barrel unless domestic resources are tapped up, while Cheney has stated his belief that only increased drilling, and not better technologies, can provide a solution to the problem. It is not hard to see why so many Americans feel this way when leading public figures talk so…

Probably the most misguided and irresponsible comments however have come from Republican Congress member Michele Bachmann, who has likened Democratic opposition to the move akin to having a locked larder full of food and denying a hungry population access. She could hardly have chosen a more apt simile for simultaneously vilifying the Democratic Party and also even further misrepresenting the issue.

Clearly some people will willfully ignore facts time and time again in order to pursue shortsighted but popular policies, as we are seeing from the above Republican figures (they are far from rogue voices - potential future president John McCain has sided with Bush and the party line on the issue).

Question is: what can we do against such prominent voices that seek to mislead and trick the public?

Well, one thing would be to help spread the truth - clear, honest facts, and then let people make up their own minds with sufficient information. While these powerful figures seek the exploit the misinformation and subsequent confusion spread in US media, here is a simple rundown of some key data which should clarify the matter a little:

US oil consumption : 20 million barrels/day (according to recent Cheney quote). This equates to 7300 million barrels a year.

(N.B. This data is from the Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov) - a provider of official energy statistics for the US govt).

TOTAL US crude oil reserves : 20,972 million barrells (in 2006 - the figure is surely slightly lower now).

Current rate of domestic production: approx 1,700 million barrels/ year (i.e. around 25% of annual consumption).

Therefore a rough calculation shows that the US in total has only enough oil to support itself alone for just under 3 years, at the current rate of consumption (which is ever increasing rather than stable).

Therefore even if Congress granted the Republicans their short-sighted solution to the oil crisis, and the oil reserves were accessible immediately (which is impossible - the financial benefits of such a move would take near enough to a decade to be noticeable), - even then the figures involved mean that the problem would only be offset by another decade or so (working on the rough assumption that domestic production might be doubled - obviously it could be increased by 500% - the relief would be greater, but proportionally briefer).

More drilling therefore is clearly not the answer - Why destroy thousands of acres of protected land and countless ecosystems for only a momentary and partial relief to the problem of oil prices?

Surely it is time to look for a more long term solution, that involves the far more difficult process of lowering demand rather than increasing supply. Such talk in the current US political climate will in all likelihood not be as popular as the Republicans’ quick fix solution, but the important thing to remember is that theirs is really no solution at all, but rather a campaign tool in the upcoming presidential election and little more…

Dejan Levi

We have a government target to cut our carbon emissions by 15 per cent by 2010, and far more stringent targets are being proposed. Patients don’t really appreciate how much energy and water we use. But in our trust, more people are aware of it - we’ve been banging the drum now for three years.

Read the rest of the article on the NHS goes green

The announcement by the Water Consumer Council a week ago that bills might rise by £30 per household and that more drought orders and hosepipe bans could be imposed, will pile pain on hard-pressed homeowners. But there are ways to harvest water for many of your needs and you could also be helping to reduce flash flooding.

Read more about how saving water can cut bills

Developers want to build a community with 5,000 homes and 2,500 jobs at the site of the former Rossington Colliery, alongside the M18. Under the proposals, a railway station and new road would be created to allow direct access for buses to Doncaster town centre, with the route forming the first link of a road between the motorway and Robin Hood airport. But to ensure the carriageways remained free-flowing for buses, private cars would be banned from using the road during the most congested periods.

Find out more about how motorists may be forced to give way to Eco-Road plans

The current Labour government is very keen on ecotowns as an ideal way of delivering a high volume of zero-carbon housing and satisfying the country’s demand for new homes. However there are some under-publicised points that rarely appear on press releases concerning the current proposals. Here are a few of them:

1. Many of the proposed ecotown sites lie partially on greenbelt land.

The Weston-on-the-Green site in Oxfordshire for example relies on such land for 12% of its total area. This means vast ancient woodlands and a nature reserve, protected for many years, would now be sacrificed to developers, as would be an even greater area of simply green (but not officially greenbelt-labelled) land. Farmland too will suffer; 2,046 acres would be lost at this site alone.

2. 12 of the 15 proposed ecotown sites are in Conservative constituencies (10 of which will be chosen for eventual development under current plans).

This is perhaps inevitable in the countryside, though it could also be argued that the measure has some degree of calculation to it - intended to minimise opposition (it has not really worked in that sense anyway, see point 9).

3. There is enough Brownfield land in the country right now to build roughly 1m new homes at medium density. In addition there are at least 600,000 empty habitable homes in England (according to Gordon Brown), plus, 9% of Commercial property currently lies empty.

In short, to build new homes in such a climate represents a lazy mismanagement of both land and resources. Granted it is more difficult to get brownfield sites converted than it is to uproot a few trees and build on already flat land - but it is also far and away the more prudent and efficient long term plan.

4. Ecotowns are supposed to be zero carbon. Except that they are in essence commuter communities which will inevitabely rely on more and more cars as their inhabitants make long journeys to work each day.

Ecotown press materials claim residents will use only public transport to commute - which must be either a shame-faced attempt at deception, or the view of a truly deluded and under-informed official. If we could instead convert existing brownfield land, most of which is in city centres, we would not only save greenbelt land - but also place workers closer to their places of work, thereby reducing car dependence.

5. After the ecotowns will come more out-of-town supermarkets and in turn more car journeys.

How else would an ecotown population (of between 5,000 and 20,000 people) get supplies? We cannot be foolish enough to think they will all be served by a local baker and butcher (the farmland has been destroyed to build the town remember). In a large ecotown we are looking at 20,000 extra car journeys per week - just for the weekly shop.

6. The architecture of the proposed ecotowns is quite frankly very uninspiring, if not plain drab.

Parkridge Holdings (involved in the Oxforshire proposals) is a fairly typical example. Visit www.parkridge.co.uk and click ‘residential’ to see for yourself.

7. In a recent excellent Guardian article Jonathan Glancey estimated that by converting current Brownfield capacity for housing the 200,000 new homes figure, which is the target of the ecotown initiative, could be not only met but exceeded.

The numbers speak for themselves - in essence we could achieve the goals of increasing housing capacity - and in a zero-carbon manner, without sacrificing any precious greenbelt or farming land. The only obstacle is cost (it is more expensive to convert land than to build on virgin land) - but surely short-term concerns such as this should not trump the long-term considerations on this issue (sustainability is sort of the point isn’t it?).

8. Ministers involved in the issue seem a little uncertain of exactly what they are doing.

Lady Andrews, Undersecretary for Housing, recently responded to a question on the matter saying ‘the five or ten ecotowns which will be built’ - suggesting somewhat of a confused reduction of scope for the plans. Similarly Caroline Flint, Minister for Housing and Development, has on occasion ignored the question of how much of the required land would be on greenbelt sites (http://tinyurl.com/5jxxqg).

9. Opposition to the plans is growing.

The Weston-on-the-Green site for example is being vehemently opposed by the Weston Front - a group led by Anthony Henman (father of tennis player Tim), while numerous other protests have also occurred in Warwickshire over the proposed Long Marston site.

10. Labour has pledged to build 3m new homes in England over the next 12 years. The current crop of ecotowns would contribute only 7% of this figure (200,000).

In terms of meeting our requirements (and Labour fulfilling their pledge), the current ecotown proposals involve sacrificing a lot, to meet only a very small fraction of our needs. We must question if this is an adequate return for what will be lost.

This is not to say that the proposals do not have any merits at all. They would of course increase housing capacity in the UK, and would increase the number of zero-carbon homes on the market (though it is hard to see how, once inhabited, these would then become zero-carbon households with the more than likely car dependence).

At the moment the only group genuinely happy with the plans are the developers set to reap large profits from the project, by being presented with the dream scenario of building on undeveloped countryside land (with no expensive clearing costs).

It is a shame that it is environmentalists who are most opposed to these ecotowns - and developers who are most keen, and also surely a clear indication that the current proposals are inadequate and misguided by quite a considerable measure.

Credit to the government for trying - but now it is time to listen to the very serious concerns of both experts and the public, and come up with another plan.

Dejan Levi

It is time to distinguish fact from fiction once and for all over the climate change issue. A recent Observer poll has shown that many Britons still doubt the causes of climate change, and question the extent of the problem. Roughly 60% of those surveyed believe that there is still disagreement among scientists over whether climate change is happening, while 40% think the extent of the climate change problem has been exaggerated. Despite this nearly two-thirds want the government to do more to tackle the issue.

How has such a degree of doubt arisen? Where is the confusion coming from?

It is certainly not due to legitimate scientific studies or reports. In the last 10 years there has not been a single scientific paper published that denies climate change is happening, man-made, and massively dangerous - excluding of course the ‘work’ of the numerous psuedo-scientists and documentary makers, and other seemingly independent media voices which have all received payments from oil companies or lobby groups.

So if science is so totally and truly clear in its findings (that climate change is an impending man-made disaster in development); how come so much doubt still pervades among the general public?

Well, in the UK there are some 14,000 people working in the PR industry. In essence people harnessing the power of the media to make private companies look better. The influence of big business in politics has never been greater, and the EU for example is recognising that certain lobby group activities need to be scrutinised. To this end the EU Commission has this week announced a forthcoming new register to monitor the activities of various lobby groups, and the involvement of big business in politics.

Such an effort is vital if we are ever to expel the doubt that still exists relating to climate change and its causes. George Monbiot has recently compared the current situation to that of the efforts of Big Tobacco in decades gone by to create doubt and confusion in the public consciousness over what is, scientifically speaking, a relatively black-and-white issue (http://tinyurl.com/42j9es). The profits that can be made from a misinformed public are colossal, and oil lobbyists (as well as motor industry lobbyists, non-renewable energy lobbysists etc etc) exist for this reason alone.

This week James Hanson, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists will call for executives of oil companies to be placed on trial for crimes against humanity and the planet, on account of the misinformation (and its serious consequences) that they have been responsible for deliberately spreading (http://tinyurl.com/4juqq3). He too has highlighted the similarities with Big Tobacco campaigns, emphasising before congress that ‘democracy is not working in the way it should’ as a result of the fact that ‘money talks in Washington’.

The thousands of PR workers, and billions of dollars that comprise their budgets represent a mighty Goliath indeed. Luckily certain mainstream media channels also wield considerable influence, and it is in this time that they have a crucial role to play in providing accurate and trustworthy information to the general public.

Here’s a little indicator of what is going on; the CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, (annual salary: £8.54bn) has publicly said: ‘a lot of climate change policy is still up for debate’. However, his company has recently cut funds to groups which ‘divert attention’ from the need to develop renewable energies due to the negative press (and subsequent financial implications) that these activities have been causing. This very action represents an open admission that such groups are used, and the cynical nature of the whole operation is plainly evident in the doublespeak of its wording.

What is needed now more than ever is a commitment from trusted media sources, and across all relevant information outlets as a whole, to a stalwart defence of facts and clarity. The doubt-casters must be thwarted and only black-and white, precise, and clear reporting can achieve this. It is not easy to remove the obstructions of the deluge of PR material that floods the internet and many public information outlets. However only a thorough and accurate practice can redress the imbalance between scientifically established fact and public misconception that currently is a testament to the success of lobby groups and big businesses campaigning on this issue.

Dejan Levi