Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Wait until the mainstream press get hold of this.


https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/uk-commits-continue-funding-billions-fossil-fuel-projects-despite-climate-pledges/

“UTTER HYPOCRISY” AS GOVERNMENT RESPONDS TO EXPORT FINANCE INQUIRY
1st October 2019, London – The UK Government has responded to a Parliamentary Inquiry into the impact of UK Export Finance’s (UKEF) financing of fossil fuels in developing countries, remarkably refusing to take any responsibility for the emissions the UK finances around the world.

In a letter (dated 15th August 2019 but published late yesterday) Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for International Trade, rejected a cross-party recommendation by Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee to rule out the UK financing fossil fuel projects by the end of 2021.

Global Witness research has found that from 2010-16, UKEF supported £4.8 billion in fossil fuel projects, whilst across a similar period, the UK spent £4.9 billion on climate aid via its International Climate Fund, meaning UKEF effectively cancels out the climate aid work of other Government departments. According to the Head of the International Energy Agency, the world cannot build any new fossil fuel infrastructure, anywhere, in order to meet the Paris Agreement goal of holding global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Adam McGibbon, Senior Campaigner at Global Witness said:

“The utter hypocrisy on display by the UK Government is outstanding. Just last week the Prime Minister was in New York, for the UN Climate Summit, pledging action whilst his Government at home was committing to funding fossil fuel projects abroad.”

“The UK is trying to portray itself as a global climate leader ahead of the UN climate summit in Glasgow next year, but this stands violently at odds with reality. Not only is the UK directly funding projects that are contributing to climate breakdown, it is locking developing nations into dirty development that will harm the people most vulnerable to its effects.”

“The cross-party recommendations from Parliament must not be dismissed, particularly whilst the Conservative Party are talking up their green credentials at their Annual Conference.”

Hexane

JKenH wrote: »

..." Just last week the Prime Minister was in New York, for the UN Climate Summit, pledging action whilst his Government at home was committing to funding fossil fuel projects abroad.”...

“The cross-party recommendations from Parliament must not be dismissed, particularly whilst the Conservative Party are talking up their green credentials at their Annual Conference.”

Funny how the press demonises China for funding new coal plants abroad (while implementing renewable power sources at home) when the UK is doing the exact same thing.

Martyn1981

Time to thank coal again for all the work done in raising our tech to the point it can now enjoy retirement.

Cottam Power Station closes after more than 50 years

One of the UK's last coal-fired power stations has been switched off.

Cottam in Nottinghamshire was opened in 1968 and at its height, produced 2,000 megawatts - enough to power more than 3.5 million homes.

Owner EDF Energy blamed "challenging market conditions" for the move, with all UK coal fire stations likely to shut by 2025.

It added many of the 300 workforce had moved either to nearby West Burton or other areas within the company.

The closure of Cottam leaves six major coal-fired stations working in the UK: West Burton, Ratcliffe, both in Nottinghamshire, Drax, in North Yorkshire, Fiddlers Ferry in Cheshire, Aberthaw - in the Vale of Glamorgan - and Kilroot in County Antrim.

NigeWick

1961Nick wrote: »

Why pick on FF for the book? Surely the title should have been along the lines of 'Money & power corrupts - regardless of it's source'.

Because FF are the new tobacco.

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

Because FF are the new tobacco.

Yep, couple of articles yesterday overlapping on these issues, be it the efforts to prevent the rollout of EV's and EV infrastructure, to the quite significant step that cases against oil companies have moved to the discovery stage, allowing for the sight of internal documents.

Regarding EV's, Tesla is still struggling in multiple States where legislation is being used to block them from selling.

This may sound a bit too grandiose, but if the US 'falls' legally, then the FF companies all around the World are in trouble in a repeat of the tobacco wars. It was legal 'discovery' this decade, that revealed internal reports from Exxon in 80's/90's confirming both the reality of AGW and its serious, but they were publicly denying the issues and links and spreading the FUD that science was not united on the conclusions.

Big Oil Faces A Formidable Foe In Fight Against Electric Vehicles

Electric utilities are keen on electric vehicles these days — they see them as a future revenue source. Utilities from California to Florida to Michigan are sponsoring the installation of public charging stations, and some are offering rebates to customers for installing home chargers. To date, at least 50 utilities in 25 states have launched or proposed programs to encourage the buildout of charging infrastructure.

A storm is brewing as Big Oil looks to take on electric utilities that support EVs. Utilities stand to gain if EV adoption rates increase.

Not everyone is applauding this trend. As a recent article in Politico reports, groups backed by oil industry giants including ExxonMobil and the Koch empire are investing millions in campaigns around the country to try to put a stop to utilities’ infrastructure projects.

According to utility commission filings reviewed by Politico, oily interest groups have challenged electric companies’ plans in 10 states, lobbying lawmakers and regulatory agencies against the proposals.

4th Circuit Rules Suit By Baltimore Against Oil Companies Can Go Forward In State Court

This week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which handles cases from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, ruled that in the case of Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP et al, proceedings in a Maryland state court may proceed.

At the federal trial court level, the 4th District Court refused the companies’ request to remove the case to federal court. That decision was appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to overrule the trial court. The oil companies have appealed 4th Circuit Court’s ruling to the US Supreme Court. The companies then asked the 4th Circuit Court to put all proceedings at the state court level on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether or not it will take up the case. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request this week.

The practical effect of the 4th Circuit Court’s order is that the lawyers for the plaintiffs — the mayor and city council of Baltimore — may now more forward with what is known as the discovery phase of preparing for trial. Under the rules of procedure in all state and federal courts, the litigants are entitled to request any and all pertinent documents and to depose the witnesses who are expected to testify at trail.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

s.

Regarding EV's, Tesla is still struggling in multiple States where legislation is being used to block them from selling.

The legislation originated from before Tesla became a major player. Vehicle manufacturers have grumbled about it for years because it's stopped them from owning the whole distribution chain & making bigger profits. Legislators claimed the measures were to prevent a monopoly.

Tesla have now disrupted the market because they sell direct & franchises don't feature in their business model.

The rules will no doubt change, but like everything else litigious in the States, it'll take ages. Of course all the franchisees will be against it ... even if the manufacturers are in favour. Since this is state law, those franchisees will have influence within each state.

It'll take some unravelling.

joefizz

1961Nick wrote: »

Tesla have now disrupted the market because they sell direct & franchises don't feature in their business model.

Insurance companies are having difficulty dealing with this too. Ive heard of people getting quoted 10x their current insurance when they buy a Tesla. Or reasonable price with a ridiculous excess and time limited hire car for something like a 1 litre 2 door replacement.

For the reasons above, hard to get spare parts and dealers few and far between which creates long delays and long courtesy car hires if theres an accident.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The legislation originated from before Tesla became a major player. Vehicle manufacturers have grumbled about it for years because it's stopped them from owning the whole distribution chain & making bigger profits. Legislators claimed the measures were to prevent a monopoly.

Tesla have now disrupted the market because they sell direct & franchises don't feature in their business model.

The rules will no doubt change, but like everything else litigious in the States, it'll take ages. Of course all the franchisees will be against it ... even if the manufacturers are in favour. Since this is state law, those franchisees will have influence within each state.

It'll take some unravelling.

The legislation the other companies used to block Tesla was that companies had to sell through their dealerships. When Tesla pointed out they were exempt as they don't have dealerships, legislation was changed to having to sell through dealerships (eliminating the 'their'). But steadily Tesla is winning cases State by State, and it's getting ever more pointless as you can still buy a Tesla, you just have to do it through an appropriate state then drive it home and register it.


Edit - Background if anyone is interested. The car companies realised that profitability but more importantly cashflow was linked to the time it took to sell the car. From there, they established the dealer network to effectively off load the sale, and reduce the time from money in to make a car to sale of car. In fact with adequate credit terms, the car may be sold to the dealership, before it's even been paid for by the company.

But then they got greedy, of course, and poor Joe Bloggs would pay Ford, GM, Chrysler etc for a car sales franchise, sink their life savings in, then a week later find another dealership for the same make being set up across the road.

So legislation was passed to protect the dealerships from their associated marque's, and prevent them from selling via other means.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The legislation the other companies used to block Tesla was that companies had to sell through their dealerships. When Tesla pointed out they were exempt as they don't have dealerships, legislation was changed to having to sell through dealerships (eliminating the 'their'). But steadily Tesla is winning cases State by State, and it's getting ever more pointless as you can still buy a Tesla, you just have to do it through an appropriate state then drive it home and register it.


Edit - Background if anyone is interested. The car companies realised that profitability but more importantly cashflow was linked to the time it took to sell the car. From there, they established the dealer network to effectively off load the sale, and reduce the time from money in to make a car to sale of car. In fact with adequate credit terms, the car may be sold to the dealership, before it's even been paid for by the company.

But then they got greedy, of course, and poor Joe Bloggs would pay Ford, GM, Chrysler etc for a car sales franchise, sink their life savings in, then a week later find another dealership for the same make being set up across the road.

So legislation was passed to protect the dealerships from their associated marque's, and prevent them from selling via other means.

My understanding is slightly different, car manufacturers want to own dealerships but are prevented from doing so by law - they are not allowed to sell direct to the customer.

Whether state legislators are protecting franchisees or the tax revenue from those franchisees is another matter. Manufacturers will probably be happy that Tesla are taking the lead on disrupting the supply chain as it'll allow them to reduce prices ... or make a bigger margin.

So much for the 'Land of the free'!

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

My understanding is slightly different, car manufacturers want to own dealerships but are prevented from doing so by law - they are not allowed to sell direct to the customer.

Whether state legislators are protecting franchisees or the tax revenue from those franchisees is another matter. Manufacturers will probably be happy that Tesla are taking the lead on disrupting the supply chain as it'll allow them to reduce prices ... or make a bigger margin.

So much for the 'Land of the free'!

The existing dealerships have legal protection ...... but of course, Tesla doesn't/didn't have private dealerships giving them an advantage, especially if most cars are sold to order, that way they don't have to worry about the time it might take to sell.

Also, and I'm sure you already realised this, but Tesla has a profit advantage since they sell retail, not wholesale, so for instance BMW don't get the $40k price of their 3 series when sold, but Tesla gets the lot from their comparable TM3.

No nice way to put it, Tesla scares the ..... out of the old firm, they can see the disruption coming but they don't know what to do given their size and inflexibility. I think Ford and GM have shed about 20k jobs just this year?