Ida regroups into tropical storm off Mexico
1257607355|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Genetic tests help track food web, climate change
1257604375|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Britain urges divided G20 to reach climate deal
1257602003|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
'Civil disobedience has a role to play' | Al Gore
1257552716|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Al Gore was born to be the most powerful man on Earth, but fell just short of his political destiny. Can the former law-maker now win his place in history as the man who helped save the planet?
Perhaps the best way to understand the extraordinary transformation of Al Gore is to study the changing rhetoric of his enemies. A mere nine years ago, back when George Bush was just a cheeky rogue with an adorable line in malapropisms, presidential candidate Gore was famously derided as wooden and dull. Having failed to win the presidency – though of course that depends, as ever, on your definition of the word "win" – he next became a pitiable loser, then a laughable climate-change wonk, then the Oscar-winning, peace prize-winning, Live Earth-organising darling of liberal Hollywood. And so it says something hugely flattering about his present-day stature, surely, that the new official anti-Gore line is that he is quite simply evil: an anti-American hypocrite, a supporter of world government, and, like Barack Obama, probably a communist or a fascist or both. A recent documentary about Gore made by Irish global warming denialists, Not Evil Just Wrong, made the mistake of diverging from this stance, prompting fury among parts of its intended audience in the US. Not evil? Get real.
In person, Gore is neither wooden nor, in any obvious way, evil. What he is, is reserved: settling back into an armchair at a fancy hotel in Los Angeles, he answers questions obligingly and at length – sometimes at very great length – but without the effort to connect that seems to be a compulsion of most politicians. He is trim, strikingly handsome, in a dark blue suit and black cowboy boots, and looks mysteriously unsleepy, despite having just flown in from a three-day trip to China. (After LA, he's due home for one night in Nashville, then off on a book tour that will take him to South Africa and Egypt. Denialists enjoy attacking Gore's personal carbon footprint, even though, as denialists, it's not clear what they're objecting to.) Not long ago, Time magazine called him "improbably charismatic", which is accurate, though this may be a consequence of his new incarnation: for a successful politician, Gore comes across as surprisingly distant, but as professorial climate change experts go, he's a rock star.
Gore, optimistically, attributes the hardening tone of his critics to "the sunset phenomenon, where there's a spectacle just before the subsiding": as the remaining climate change doubters and vested interests begin to realise that the game is up, he suggests, they're bound to make one last stand. "This self-interest on the part of some of the carbon polluters – who are becoming a bit intense in their efforts – reflects their awareness that public opinion has been shifting very significantly," he says. "When I say 'they', I don't mean to indict all of them, because the business community is now very much split… but that realisation has produced a desire on the part of some of these carbon polluters to dig in their heels."
He points to the US Chamber of Commerce's new hardline stance against action on the environment, which prompted several major American corporations to resign from it. (They included Apple, on whose board Gore sits, though he says he first heard of that decision when he read about it in the paper.) "They're calling for a new Scopes trial," says Gore, referring to the Chamber's efforts to liken a belief in global warming to creationism. "Ha! The Scopes trial happened in my home state, and I can tell you, one was quite enough." But many firms are beginning to take a different approach, he notes, for example those who have joined the 10:10 campaign in the UK, which is supported by the Guardian; Gore calls 10:10 "brilliant", and sees no reason why it couldn't work in the US, too.
Gore's new book, Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis, gives global warming deniers short shrift, and shows little concern for displays of political bipartisanship: he likens the doubters to the "birthers" intent on proving that Obama is a Kenyan – not just mavericks, but fantasists who inhabit a different version of reality. "The golden thread of reason that used to be stretched taut to mark the boundary between the known and the unknown is now routinely disrespected," he writes, in a typically Goreish sentence, immediately prior to quoting Theodor Adorno, King Solomon and Aesop. Primarily, though, Our Choice is a sumptuously illustrated coffee-table book of potential solutions, explaining both Gore's favourites (geothermal energy, biochar, "smart" electrical grids) and those about which he's deeply sceptical (nuclear power, carbon capture and pumping sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, a plan he describes as "insane").
When making his Oscar-winning 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore arguably had it easy: it's fairly straightforward to grip an audience when you're portraying scenes of apocalyptic destruction. The new book pulls off a considerably more impressive feat. It focuses on solving the crisis, yet manages to be absorbing on a topic that is all too often – can we just come clean about this, please? – crushingly boring. Importantly, it seeks to enlist readers as political advocates for the cause, rather than just urging them to turn down the heating. "It's important to change lightbulbs," he says, in a well-burnished soundbite, "but more important to change policies and laws." Or perhaps to break laws instead: peaceful occupations of the kind witnessed recently in the UK, he predicts, are only going to become more widespread. "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play. And I expect that it will increase, no question about it." People sometimes express incredulity that Gore, who was groomed for the presidency almost since birth, seems so resolved that he'll never return to electoral politics. But here's a vivid example of the benefits of life on the outside: how many serving politicians would feel able to come so close to urging people to commit trespass?
Gore is particularly compelling on psychology: his book addresses head-on the fact that merely repeating grave pronouncements about the climate crisis isn't a remotely effective way to get governments or individuals to act. Instead, he explores ways to link long-term environmental goals to everyday incentives that people and businesses can actually get their heads around, most obviously by putting a price on carbon via cap-and-trade and other mechanisms: "If the only tool we use to analyse what's valuable is a price tag, then those things that don't have price tags begin to look like they have no value," he writes. He's also passionate about the potential psychological impact of Dscovr, the Nasa satellite project he proposed while serving as Bill Clinton's vice-president (which Dick Cheney mothballed, and Obama has resurrected). Among other things, it would provide a continuous view of the sunlit side of the Earth, available via the internet – a sort of real-time version of the famous Earthrise photograph, serving as a constant reminder and update on the fragile state of our planet.
But it is, naturally, the state of Gore's personal psychology that interests people just as much. Everyone has their hypotheses. They want to know if his environmental campaigning has somehow brought him peace, after the almost unimaginable disappointment of the 2000 election. Or they speculate that he feels guilty for not focusing sufficiently on the climate during that campaign, and is making up for lost time, or guilty for not fighting harder over Florida, given all that subsequently happened under Bush. Our Choice, like An Inconvenient Truth, declares that we are at a historic decision point, at which we can choose to hesitate, with disastrous consequences, or to rise to the occasion – which is virtually an invitation to engage in armchair psychoanalysis. Didn't Gore himself blink, at an analogous crucial moment, with momentous results for himself, and the world?
In the years immediately following the disputed presidential election – after growing a beard and gaining weight – Gore drew on deadpan humour to help process the experience, and to put audiences at their ease. "You win some, you lose some, and then there's that little-known third category," he would say. Or: "I don't want you to think I lie awake at night, counting and recounting sheep." But these days the gags have subsided. "To place the disappointment, which I felt keenly, into some perspective, there are millions upon millions of people who have suffered infinitely larger losses than I suffered," he says now. "They move on with their lives, and if they can, I certainly can. If we walked through the lobby of this hotel and down the sidewalk outside, we'd run into a lot of people who, without us knowing it, are carrying enormous burdens of loss and disappointment. It's part of the human condition."
It does seem, though, as if taking on the biggest conceivable global challenge has helped heal the wound, and perhaps even provided him with a satisfaction that being vice-president didn't. "It's a blessing to have work that feels fulfilling," he says. "There's a passage in the Bible – not that I wear religion on my sleeve; I do not – but there's a passage that's long had meaning for me: 'Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might'... There's that wonderful old English movie, Chariots Of Fire, when the runner says at one point, 'When I run, I feel God's pleasure.' He was expressing a universal human emotion that I think is applicable."
It is easy to forget exactly how unlikely it is that Gore should be doing anything, at this point, other than serving as an elected politician. The son of the Tennessee senator Albert Gore, he was born in Washington DC and grew up immersed in politics; by the time he went to Harvard, he'd gone public with his ambition to become president. He met his future wife, Tipper, at his high school prom in 1965, and served in Vietnam as an army journalist, despite opposing the war; by 1977 he was a Congressman, aged 29. He upgraded to the Senate in 1985, where he played a key role in securing funding for the nascent internet – even if he didn't quite invent it, as some critics falsely alleged that he'd claimed – and ran unsuccessfully to be the Democrats' presidential nominee in the 1988 election. In 1989, his son Albert, then six, was hit by a car while crossing the road and nearly died: Gore said the experience transformed him, and put him off running for president; instead, he joined Clinton's ticket in 1992. During 2007 and 2008, it was frequently suggested that he should run again – indeed, that he had a moral duty to run again – and he never quite fully dismissed the notion until he endorsed Obama. More than any other living figure on the US national stage, perhaps, Capitol Hill and the White House have dominated his life.
And yet here he is, aged 61, living in Nashville, in an 18-room mansion that has been retrofitted to rely entirely on renewable energy, shuttling across the globe, positioning himself cleverly both as the ultimate insider and an activist willing to go far further than the insiders would dare. He serves as an adviser to Google, as well as an Apple board member, chairs a sustainable investment fund, and is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capital fund with environmental interests. (He is, as a result, often accused of a conflict of interest, but responds that all his profits go to his nonprofit organisation, the Alliance for Climate Protection.) "He's got access to every leader in every country, the business community, people of every political stripe," Tipper Gore told Time magazine. "He can do this his way, all over the world, for as long as he wants. That's freedom. Why would anyone give that up?"
Contrary to the general consensus among activists and journalists, Gore remains optimistic about the Copenhagen talks in December – optimistic that the US Senate will pass a bill to clarify Washington's position, arming Obama with much-needed moral authority, and thus optimistic that a worthwhile agreement, which hinges on a US commitment, will emerge from the gathering itself. "I was in China two days ago, and the premier of China asked me, in essence, why I'm optimistic that the Senate will pass legislation when the conventional wisdom says otherwise. And the answer is that I have been a part of conversations between Democrats and Republicans that give me a very different view from what the consensus is in the journalistic community." He refers to the op-ed by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in the New York Times, calling for legislation to pass. "There are other surprises like that in store."
Of the potential Copenhagen deal, Gore says, "I expect it to be far weaker than the one I would like to see. However, the important achievement [will be] to put a price on carbon, and reset expectations among business, government, NGOs and others." He likens the situation to the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer. "The world acted fairly quickly, but the agreement they reached was criticised for being insufficient." Yet, he points out, when the treaty was revised, "many of the businesses that had opposed [it] were there to argue in favour of toughening it significantly. Because once they began to comply... they realised that it was not as difficult as they had feared. And once they'd made the commitment to the change, they were eager to get on with it." It made more sense, financially and in PR terms, to go all the way instead of halfway.
Is it important for Obama to go to Copenhagen himself? "Oh yes. And I expect that he will. He hasn't told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I feel certain that he will."
In Gore's position, of course, optimism infused with urgency is the only rational stance to take in public. Unless you either don't believe in human-caused global warming, or you think it's definitely too late to do anything about it, there's no real upside to saying anything other than that the situation is grave yet addressable. But Gore, you get the feeling, really is an optimist, all the way through. His repeated references to JFK's promise to put a man on the moon may not, as a climate change analogy, bear close scrutiny: putting a man on the moon didn't require the average American to do anything at all. Still, the crisis needs its Kennedy, and Gore – for all his improbable, un-Kennedy-like brand of charisma – seems to be that man.
"We have a tendency as human beings to confuse the unprecedented with the improbable," he says. "If something has never happened before, we tend to assume it will not happen in the future... [but] throughout history, there have been examples of human societies confronting dire threats, and finding, in their response, that they were capable of more than they thought they were capable of." What everything depends on now, he says, is "how soon we reach a critical mass of political awareness that can... give us the ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption." We will win or we will lose: outside of dodgy Floridian elections, there actually isn't a third category.
• Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis, by Al Gore, is published by Bloomsbury at £14.99. To order a copy for £13.99 (including UK mainland p&p), go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846.
Lifting the lid on climate change talks
1257552612|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Rich countries bullying poorer ones, mud-slinging and back-stabbing - environmental summits can be vicious
At 8am on Wednesday 7 October, a smartly dressed fiftysomething Filipino woman took the escalator to the first floor of the UN building in Bangkok and merged into a throng of diplomats, civil servants and environmentalists arriving for the eighth day of the ninth session of the global climate talks. She was met with a few respectful nods.
Bernarditas de Castro Muller – "Ditas" to her chums – chatted to a journalist and a colleague, and then went to work in conference room 1. She spread her papers in front of her, stood up and began to belch fire, tearing the flesh off three Americans and chewing two Europeans. After swallowing them whole, she sat back down.
She didn't, of course, but such is Bernarditas's reputation as a "dragon woman" in the epic UN climate talks which should conclude next month in Copenhagen that if she had, no one (least of all the US and British governments who seem to fear and loathe her) would have been too surprised.
In the outwardly polite yet vicious world of UN climate change diplomacy, where negotiators use every trick to further national interests and where battles rage over commas, colons and semi-colons, Bernarditas is seen by most poor countries as a heroic defender of their rights. But most rich countries paint her as a machiavellian, Soviet-style hardliner holding back an agreement to save the world.
Bernarditas is officially an environment adviser to the Filipino government, and lead negotiator and co-ordinator of the 130 developing countries in the umbrella group known as the G77 plus China. She negotiates in what is called "the ad hoc working group on long-term co-operative action (AWG-LCA) process under the Bali action plan". In short, she represents the interests of nearly two-thirds of the poorest people of the world in the climate talks.
It's her job – along with a few other G77 negotiators – to keep together the traditionally squabbling poor nations at least until the major power blocks like the US and EU inevitably split and outmanoeuvre them. She must wrest the best possible financial deal for them by insisting that the rich countries commit to deep CO2 cuts. She is a pivotal figure in the talks, a lightning rod for western distrust and for southern hopes.
But this sweaty Bangkok morning has started badly. Manila, the capital of the Philippines, 1,000 miles east, is literally under water following back-to-back typhoons and floods, and in the last few days there have also been a tsunami in Samoa and an earthquake claiming over 1,000 lives in Sumatra. Moreover, the climate talks on which UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has said "the future of this entire humanity" depends are deadlocked.
Environmentalists say the series of disasters should concentrate minds, but with just six full negotiating days before world leaders join the final conference of the parties in Copenhagen, the diplomats of 181 countries present in Bangkok have failed to agree on the big issues: what carbon cuts rich countries should make, how much money the poor should get to help them adapt to climate change, and where that money should come from. A draft text has been hacked down by negotiators from 250-odd pages to half that, leaving the UN bureaucracy optimistic – but everyone knows it has been painfully slow.
In these talks nobody moves until everybody moves, so most of the big issues will now only be resolved by politicians in late-night horse-trading sessions at very end of next month's talks in Copenhagen. But right now in Bangkok another matter is brewing that threatens to derail the negotiations and which illustrates the immense gulf that exists between rich and poor countries.
The UN's Kyoto protocol, which has been signed by 184 countries and commits all the word's rich nations except the US to cut emissions, is the base of the present talks, but it has just come under massive attack. The US negotiating team, led by the bearded former climate thinktank scientist Jonathan Pershing, is playing traditional hardball diplomacy, stating categorically that it will not join Kyoto. There's nothing new in US intransigence on climate change, but in a dramatic development, Europe and Australia have just sided for the first time publicly with the US, arguing that the Kyoto treaty should now be ditched in favour of a new one to get the Americans on board.
The poor, represented mostly by the G77 and China, are outraged. Why should the whole world change, they ask, just to accommodate the US? This Bangkok meeting should have been spent negotiating how far rich countries were prepared to cut emissions after 2012; instead countries like India and China have been told they, too, must all come up with quantifiable plans to cut their emissions – something not agreed before – and the rich seem to be ducking their commitments.
If the climate talks are a game of diplomatic chess, the rich countries have just moved their white queen into the back row of the developing countries' territory. But have they underestimated the reaction this will get? Can the G77 and China now gain diplomatic advantage? Are the industrialised countries threatening the talks by wanting it all their own way? Or will their bold move lead to a genuinely global agreement?
Bernarditas, who insists she does not represent the views of the G77, is appalled. For her, the US and EU are not just illegally abandoning an international treaty but they are now jeopardising the credibility of international law and the UN system itself. She is contemptuous. "Do the rich countries have any sense of life in the least-developed countries?" she asks. "I doubt it."
"I say, aren't we all in this world together? Didn't we all sign this?" she says to a small audience in the UN coffee bar that morning, brandishing a well-thumbed copy of the 20-page Kyoto treaty.
She turns to page 7 where she has underlined paragraphs: "Look!" she says, jabbing the text with her index finger. "Article 4. It says 'shall'. That is legally binding. There are obligations here. The words are not there by chance. And there's the word 'fully'. We spent hours on that word. We agreed on it. Are they saying it no longer applies? These are very serious negotiations. The Kyoto protocol is not a statement from a high-level meeting when they [politicians] go 'blah blah'. They are not bound by that. Here they are bound. It's law! Why do they now want to kill Kyoto? A new agreement means we will have to go through ratification all over again. How long will that take? What if you do not ratify? What are we left with? If you throw this away…? Every word in it means something important because it binds us to legal obligations."
To negotiate successfully at this level means you must understand your opponents and are able to argue all night. Bernarditas does that, but friend and foe say she has a special advantage because she is not only a stickler for detail but she knows the UN climate change convention and the Kyoto protocol word for word. And because her negotiating days go back to the Rio Earth summit in 1992 when the first climate change treaty was signed, woe betide any young pup of a rich country negotiator who strays from the precise words.
"She is the protector of the convention," says a colleague (in the world of diplomacy no one wants to be identified). "I'd hate to negotiate against her. She reminds me of Humpty Dumpty when he said to Alice, 'When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.' "
A western friend, who also asks not to be named, says: "She is used by the G77 and China as the bad cop, the experienced negotiator past whom the inexperienced, naive and unsuspecting cannot pass. She has an old style of Soviet negotiating. She can go on for 45 minutes easily. It's a method. It's attrition. Her start is from a stance of noncooperation. Success is seen as how much the opposition gives in, and how much you can extract. You have to start with something unbelievable and make concessions. Even the Americans quake in fear of her. She terrifies them."
Bernaditas herself says: "Few people have dealt with the talks since the beginning [like me] and can still remember what we wrote. The majority don't see what we fought so hard for. [They say] this or that sounds reasonable. But I say that the words matter. They don't mean the same thing to everyone but they determine the levels of the relationship. There are words that do not appear that we talk about for hours.
"I use their [the rich countries'] language. I spell it better. I don't make grammatical mistakes like they do. It angers them. I never get angry, I'm not subservient, nor impressed. They say, 'She cannot be right, she's only a woman and must be weak.' "
"Clearly she is successful," says a European observer. "They would not employ her otherwise. But it would please the annex 1 [industrialised] countries a lot if she were not there. She is very dangerous to their interests. She doesn't hesitate to remind them all the time that they are in breach of their obligations. They roll their eyes and say, 'There she goes again.' "
"Actually, she's really like my mum," says a young Malaysian barrister. "She is sweet but very authoritative."
Bernarditas de Castro Muller is a grandmother who lives in Geneva with her Swiss economist husband and is known among her colleagues for her sense of humour and babysitting skills. She has a house in Manila, and travels there regularly to see family, has lived in Kenya and worked as a full-time diplomat on just about every major global agreement on the environment of the last 20 years. Now, when she is not negotiating climate, she travels the world teaching diplomats from other developing countries how to negotiate.
"I am only a housewife, actually," she says. "My husband doesn't even trust me with the household budget. My education was totally western and I have spent most of my life in Europe. I am living in two worlds but I am at home in both. I see poverty and how people must live in developing countries but I am fortunately not poor."
Climate change is the most complex and satisfying of all the diplomacy she has done because it is science-based, it is about development, but mainly because there is so much at stake. Get it right, she says, and the world has the chance to both halt catastrophic climate change and find a better path to develop. Get it wrong and all the injustices and disadvantages that developing countries now face will be magnified 1,000 times in the coming years.
"Climate change is making the poor even more vulnerable and threatening to destroy their health and their homes," she says.
She was persuaded to fight for climate justice when she went back to live in Manila after the downfall of President Marcos in the late 1980s. "We happened to be chair of the G77. I listened to developing countries. I saw so much disadvantage there. The fact is they are very open and vulnerable. [It became clear] that the rich countries are freely exploiting, stealing practically, their resources. These countries do not have resources because they were so exploited in the past.
"I now see developing countries who have so little… they get peanuts. They think if someone gives them anything they should be grateful. [But] developed countries have taken on obligations to provide money. This is not voluntary bilateral aid, or charity that we are negotiating from the annex 1 countries. This is a commitment.
"When we were negotiating in the 1990s, all of us were caught up in environment and development. We were full of ideals. We said, 'Yes, we have to do something, because the world is getting lost.' Now I tell the developing countries that I am not working for them but for their children's children and what we will leave the world."
Even seasoned diplomats find the talks surreal, with an arcane language, logic and a pace of their own. In three years, they have gone well beyond being just about emission cuts and now embrace development, trade, finance, carbon markets, forestry, science and technology. Because they are so complex, most nations belong to one or another of the negotiating blocs, like the G77, the EU, the Alliance of small island states, or the African group.
Negotiators are mainly anonymous civil servants who have some freedom to set positions but can hide from their public, which is mostly denied access to the talks. They admit to personal duels and tactical manoeuvres. Phrases that might protect the world's forests or condemn nuclear power may be there one day, but be removed the next, and no one can say why or who is responsible.
But as the talks have progressed, so the negotiators admit to becoming lost in their own verbiage. There have been long debates over whether a comma, a colon or a semicolon should be used in the text; arguments have raged about the meaning of "sustainable forest management" as opposed to "sustainable management of forests"; and hours have been spent by nations debating the differences between "economic development" and "sustainable development".
Now the talks have invented their own language. There are Bingos (business and industry non-governmental groups) who discuss Mrvs (measurable, reportable and verifiable), Namas (nationally appropriate mitigation actions) and Napas (national adaptation programmes of action). One important section is known as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation); another is called Lulucf (land-use, land-use change and forestry) which probably only 50 people in the world half-understand. Meanwhile, more than 100 "non-papers" have been issued which reflect nations' points of view without being formal positions.
"It is easily the most complex piece of diplomacy ever devised," says one British diplomat. "A set of interlocking negotiations taking place on parallel tracks, ranging from aviation to trade and forests to adaptation, finance and science. It's quite possible it will all collapse under its own weight.
"There are many people who try to keep the language incomprehensible. There's a relationship between power and transparency – it's about keeping people out. The only people who really understand the lingo are the people who wrote it. It needs another industry of people to translate the words so they can be understood. I remember my first experience in the negotiations. I concluded after 25 minutes that I was in a madhouse. It was one of the most professionally disconcerting experiences of my life," he says.
He recalls seeing Bernarditas in action for the first time: "There was what was called the Gang of Four – Bernarditas, a Chinese negotiator we called Professor No because he said no to everything, an Indian and a Saudi. They acted as the 'they shall not pass' group. Bernarditas was scary. You could imagine her as one of the Gang of Four in the Chinese upheavals. She and Professor No were fighting a 1960s ideological war in which the rich were trying to screw the poor and vice versa."
Several weeks later, this point was put to Bernarditas. "What do they mean by ideological war?" she thundered. "What are they saying? They should specify. What do they not like? What do they mean by 1960s ideology? Fidel [Castro]? The opening up of traditions? Opposition to the colonial mentality? They have to specify what! No, I don't live up to their prejudices of what is a third-world woman, that's what they don't like about me.
"But if they mean 1960s ideology in the sense of keeping economic gains, yes. They just do not accept they have historical responsibility. It's like I burn down your house and you become rich but now they say you can pay for it yourself. Well, you might be rich, but your brothers and sisters also lost their houses. Are you free from responsibility because one member of your family becomes rich?"
She says the dice are loaded against the poor. Africa is experiencing climate change faster and deeper than almost anywhere else, and could be devastated within 30 years, yet its 55 countries have been offered no money by the rich to adapt and can afford to bring only 145 official delegates between them to Bangkok – just 8% of the total.
Europe, however, has more than 450 delegates, with the UK, Denmark and US numbering 142 between them. At least 50 countries have only one or two, but the WWF, a western conservation group, has a team of 50 to lobby, observe and advise delegations, as well as to brief the press. In comparison with the EU or the US, the G77 has no offices, no permanent staff and no budget to meet in advance of conferences. Moreover, while delegates from poor countries must grasp highly complex technical issues in their second or even third languages, big country delegations may bring legal advisers, interpreters and business consultants for each area of the talks, with many more experts held in reserve.
The US or Japan may fly in people to advise them on the precise wording of a single paragraph, and as the talks reach their climax, rich countries will have whole teams of people to take it in turns to be on the frontline of the negotiations, staying fresh while their less well resourced opponents are exhausted.
"Most developing countries don't have enough people, they don't even understand the text. They are exhausted after a few days and cannot even get to the meetings," says Meena Rahman from Third World Network, an NGO based in Geneva which has followed the talks for years. "They complain that they are marginalised, but there is nothing they can do. All the negotiations are in English and some just do not understand what is going on. It's accepted as a fact of life in the negotiations."
From a poor country's perspective, it is easy to suspect institutional bias. The executive secretary of the talks is Yvo de Boer, a Dutch diplomat, who himself has succeeded another Dutchman. His deputy is Canadian, and many of the senior secretariat and core groups are staffed by middle-aged white men. The media at the talks is mostly western and the language throughout is English.
"Of course we complain all the time," says an African diplomat. "If you control the process, you control the discussion and the texts. That's how you manipulate the outcome. It's very easy really."
Is this a sensible or fair way to go about re-ordering the world's economies to counter something as important as climate change? "No," says an exhausted Swedish diplomat in Bangkok. "It's quite mad."
As the talks conclude, the tactics get dirtier and the road to Copenhagen becomes increasingly ugly. Earlier this year, says Bernarditas, word was dropped by a British diplomat in a meeting with non-government groups that she was appearing overfriendly with the Saudi Arabian delegation because she had possibly accepted a house from them. The veiled accusation of bribery sped along the diplomatic grapevine. "It was outrageous," says Bernarditas. "I could not believe this."
But while she suspected a crude attempt to smear her, she was unable to prove anything and last week the head of the UK negotiations, Jan Thompson, said categorically that no official complaint had been received.
"It's quite inconceivable. Bernarditas does not even need the money. She is incorruptible. That's why they hate her," says one of her colleagues. "But she and the Saudis no longer sit near each other for fear that the rumours are restarted."
"It's an idiot putting that about. It will backfire. God, how stupid can you get!" said a British observer. "It's below the belt… we should not think the Brits are immune [from these tactics]."
Bernarditas herself stays aloof. "Each one is looking for the weakness of the other. It's very vicious. But there are big commercial interests at stake. They exploit the weaknesses of people and exacerbate the differences between countries. It's part of the game," she says.
So, too, is the rhetoric now being employed by leaders of rich countries in the last crucial weeks before Copenhagen. In meeting after meeting, presidents and prime ministers have used apocalyptic language to insist that the future of the world is at stake and everyone must play their part. It plays well in the north, but in many developing countries it rings hollow, where it is seen as a precursor to blaming the poor if no deal is struck.
The rhetoric is reciprocated with the poor: "Developed countries have overconsumed their share of the atmospheric space – they ate the pizza and left us the crumbs," said ambassador Anjelica Navarro of Bolivia. "They have a historical debt – a historical responsibility. We want our atmosphere back, how you do that, developed countries, is your problem."
In a few weeks' time the talks will reconvene possibly for the last time in Copenhagen under the glare of the world's media and with the extra ingredient of high emotion brought by thousands of environment, human rights and development groups from around the world. But in diplomatic terms, the real talks are nearly over, having taken place behind closed doors between fewer and fewer countries. In the last month, there have been high-level meetings in London, Beijing, Delhi and Washington, with the US, Europe, Japan and the EU all trying to work out their position and agree what offer they are prepared to make.
"They are now working together to split the developing countries, in order to weaken their political positions and isolate them before they make them offers and get their way," says Rahman.
The way this is being done, she says, is via those countries who are most vulnerable to climate change. The British in particular have worked with the Maldives to form a new grouping, known as the "group of vulnerable countries", a set of small island states and least developed countries who stand to disappear beneath the waves or be most affected by drought and flood. Next week, Bangladesh, Kenya and others will meet with British financial help in the Maldives, with rich countries invited to attend.
"They can expect tempting sweeteners to break away from the G77, and threats if they do not play ball," says Meena Rahman, who is also a former chair of Friends Of The Earth International. "It looks brilliant in PR terms. It looks like the British are helping the weakest but they are really peeling off the poorest and weakening Kyoto and the treaty."
Robin Gwynn, UK special envoy for vulnerable countries, insists this is far too cynical a view, saying no country has done more than Britain to give the poor a real voice in the talks. "The effort has been very genuine. The moral case must be made to ensure a global deal."
But another diplomat sees the tactical advantage in working with the poorest. "If you can convince the most vulnerable countries that there is a serious funding offer on the table, then you can open up another front which helps a lot of third-party things. Tactics? It's never thought out before, it's always [negotiations] by the seat of the pants. There are too many events to react to. It's always chaotic. It's a weird game."
In the end, exhausted ministers from the three great power blocks, the US, the EU and China, will probably make a deal of sorts between themselves in the small hours of 17 December in Copenhagen. By then, the world's really poor countries will have long been diplomatically blown away from the negotiations with promises of cash soon and greater reward later. The G77 and its negotiators like Bernarditas will congratulate themselves for obtaining the best possible deal in the circumstances and the rich countries will insist the world is on a new, cleaner, greener development path.
There will be something for everyone because everyone wants something, and the politicians will be able to go home waving a communiqué that commits countries and industries to taking action to reduce emissions. Whether it is anywhere like enough, fast enough, to prevent a climate catastrophe, or is just or equitable, is another matter.
Because in western diplomatic terms, if there is not complete failure, then there can be one of only two outcomes to these climate talks. Copenhagen must be either a success or a great success. It may clearly be a fudge, or even a cop-out, but for the politicians who must sell it back home, nothing else in the world can be countenanced.
• Join the 10:10 climate change campaign, which the Guardian is supporting, at 1010uk.org
Ethical investments: What shade of green will you choose?
1257552407|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
With National Ethical Investment Week about to start, Sarah Pennells guides newcomers through the three main types of fund and suggests where to go to find out more
You recycle, switch off lights and have a water butt. But is your wallet green? Tomorrow sees the start of National Ethical Investment Week (NEIW), a campaign designed to spread the message of ethical and green investing. Only 8% of people invest ethically, although 33% of those questioned by YouGov for NEIW said they would consider it in the next five years.
Ethical investing can be tricky to get to grips with if you are a first-timer. With dozens of different funds and some off-putting jargon, it is not surprising that some just plonk their cash in the first fund they come across.
But this is not the route to investing happiness. You might end up with a fund that bears no relation to your own ethical views or one with a great track record in ... abysmal performance. You do not need to be an ethical expert to invest £50 a month in an Isa, but it helps if you understand the basics.
There is no foolproof way to categorise funds because they tend to overlap, but they can be – broadly – broken down into ethical, green and engagement funds (which put pressure on companies to improve their behaviour). Don't expect funds in the same category to invest in the same companies: it will be down to their focus and investment approach.
Ethical funds either refuse to invest in certain companies or sectors, positively invest in others, or both. Those on the banned list will vary but could include cigarette and alcohol producers, armaments manufacturers and businesses supporting regimes with a bad record on human rights.
Of all the categories, it is the easiest to explain, according to Amanda Davidson, of independent financial adviser Baigrie Davies: "If you ask a client what they want to do with their money, they'll always start with a list of what they don't want to invest in."
The first green fund launched 21 years ago. Now there are dozens; some exclude companies with a bad environmental record, others invest in specific sectors, such as renewable energy.
But if you think green funds buy only solar panel and wind turbine makers, you will be disappointed. For example, Jupiter Ecology fund, the oldest green fund, invests in a producer of free range and organic sausages.
Funds that take engagement seriously can have a far bigger influence than traditional ethical funds. By "engaging", fund managers lobby chief executives of companies they invest in and use their vote at shareholder meetings to bring about change.
The providers
Ethical funds use either in-house or external research (or both) to assess companies before they invest and while some funds are very strict, with a long list of companies they cannot invest in, others are not. In theory, the stricter the fund the worse the performance should be, but Aegon's Equity fund, with one of the strictest screening criteria, has (until recently) performed well. "It has very simple negative screens covering activities such as human rights, armaments and labour relations," says John Ditchfield, director of ethical independent financial adviser Barchester Green Investment. "It also has consistent fund management."
However, its performance has taken something of a battering in recent months; falling from the top 25% in its sector – over both five and 10 years – to the bottom 25% (which Aegon says is because it cannot invest in large banks or oil and mining companies).
The biggest and best-known ethical funds are the Stewardship group, launched by Friends Provident 25 years ago and now managed by F&C. They are unusual in that fund managers can only invest in companies approved by an external committee.
Green funds Jupiter's Ecology fund was the first green fund and remains popular. Its negative screens are important, but it actively invests in companies that benefit the environment. Julian Parrott, from Ethical Futures, based in Edinburgh, says: "It's a broad-based fund with a strong environmental focus which includes shares in UK companies."
However, Lee Coates, at independent financial adviser Ethical Investors, likes the Guinness Alternative Energy fund's pure environmental approach. "Some [other] green funds invest in companies that use renewable energy, not because they're generating it."
Engagement funds A number of fund managers use a mixture of positive and negative screening and engagement and some, including Aviva Investors, are particularly active at engaging (on anything from disclosing carbon emissions to improving employee relations). Steve Waygood, Aviva Investors' head of sustainability, research and engagement, believes there are real benefits to this approach: "First, to support business behaviour that generates long-term value for investors and second, to ensure that the board is behaving with integrity in its dealings."
Other fund managers that engage include Henderson, Co-operative Investments and F&C. Before you invest, find out when the fund introduced its engagement policy, how active it is and what information it publishes.
Poor performers
You are likely to have more short-term volatility if you invest ethically, but some funds – such as Sovereign's Ethical fund – stand out for the wrong reasons. Figures from Trustnet show it made a loss of 16.9% over five years, while another ethical fund, run by Old Mutual, produced just 9.6% over five years (well below the sector average).
The advisers
If you want an adviser with relevant expertise, look at the website Yourethicalmoney.org, which has a directory of ethical IFAs. A good one should ask about your approach and not simply recommend funds on the basis that you're interested in "ethical" investment.
Useful contacts
Yourethicalmoney.org is a one-stop shop for information on green and ethical investments; neiw.org has consumer-friendly information on ethical investing; Trustnet.com tracks funds' performance and has an 'ethical' filter.
Sarah Pennells has written a beginner's guide to ethical money called Green Money: how to save and invest ethically, published by Guardian Books at £9.99.
Case study: Long-term commitment
Glynn Jones, pictured above with his family, says the ethical dimension was only part of the reason why he invested two years ago in a green fund: he believes it's going to offer among the best long-term returns.
Jones, from Leytonstone in east London, switched from Jupiter UK Growth to Jupiter Ecology two years ago. The fund invests in companies committed to the long-term protection of the environment, and its biggest holding is Vestas, a Danish maker of wind turbine systems. In the past year it has given investors a return of 15.1%, against a 14.1% gain in the FTSE World index. But more important for Jones is the fact that it avoided much of last year's market slump. Over three years it is down 0.6%; the FTSE World has fallen 17.1%.
"I like it as much for its long-term business strategy as for the fact it's an ethical fund," says Jones. He hopes the initial investment, plus the £80 a month he puts in, will help his son, now aged three, at university or when he needs a deposit for a home. Patrick Collinson
Country diary: Bedfordshire
1257552396|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Bedfordshire
The other night, a deer stepped out in front of me as I drove past the tollhouse at Cople. The car headlights picked out the muntjac tiptoeing across the road, a ballerina on cloven points. The doe tripped out of the spotlight cast by my braking car and into the full beam glare of an oncoming vehicle. But this animal was a practised pedestrian. She ducked down behind a bollard on the traffic island and waited. The car shot past us both and my last view as I drew level and glanced to the side was of a bouncing rump heading for the brambles in the darkness.
This morning, I am looking into the still dark eye of another deer at a yet more perilous crossing. Here, near the bottom of a gully dividing the wooded hills of Redstone and Swaden, the roadside wall runs out. Deer, foxes and badgers have learned to make their way down the twin slopes to this passing place. But their traversing point is on a steep curve and they are blind to traffic racing down the hill until they reach the middle of the road.
The sandy-coated doe has a rounded belly swollen by pregnancy. Perhaps the extra burden slowed her as she trotted out from the wood opposite. My eyes follow the lighter fur on her chest up over her slender neck to her face. Her hair is soaked into a crimson twirl, the red streak continuing in a dribble across her cheek. Her tongue blows a lifeless raspberry. Three black lumps of grit are embedded in her rump. They must have made these deep impressions when the deer's body smacked down hard on the tarmac. But judging from her position, several feet from the kerb, with both pairs of legs pointing neatly towards the road, the momentum of her fall did not hurl her to this spot. Only a few minutes ago, an unlucky motorist must have lifted this mother-not-to-be and laid her here to rest among the fallen leaves.
Big Green Gathering's ticket refund policy hits dud note
1257552359|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
About 20,000 people paid up to £125 each, but the Big Green Gathering was cancelled at the last minute. Months later some are still waiting for their money
People who booked tickets for a leading green festival cancelled in July are growing worried they will not be refunded, even though some handed over their cash almost a year ago, Guardian Money can reveal.
Up to 20,000 people were expected at this year's Big Green Gathering, a five-day festival in the Mendip Hills in Somerset, described as "a celebration of our natural world and our place within it", which was set to kick off on 29 July. But only days before the gates were due to open, the event was cancelled.
There has been much debate in green circles about how and why the festival was scrapped – in August, the Guardian carried an article by George Monbiot that explored some of the theories
The directors claim they had no option but to voluntarily surrender the event licence after being "stitched up" by the police and council officials.
But whatever the reason, some of those who shelled out for tickets are unhappy that they are still waiting for their money.
It appears that those who bought via leading ticket agencies, from local shops or from tourist information bureaus, will get – or have received – a full refund, but people who booked directly with the organisation, either via its website or by sending a cheque to its office, are in a different position.
Last December, Liz Smith bought an "earlybird" ticket costing £115 directly from the Big Green Gathering office. "We'd been before to this festival and decided to go again this year," she says. Smith paid by cheque and says she received a receipt confirming tickets would be sent out in April, which did not happen.
Following the cancellation, information about refunds was put on the festival website. But, on downloading the refund form, Smith says she was irritated by the "flippant" and "patronising" tone.
The form certainly seems designed to encourage people to forgo most or all of their money. There are three options that allow ticket buyers to say they don't need a refund.
For example, they can tick a box to say they are happy to accept a free ticket to 2010's Big Green Gathering and, as long as they receive this, no longer require their money back. A fourth option allows people to donate some of the ticket price to the "cause".
After that comes a section headed "Full refund required", where people have to tick a box stating: "I'm sorry but I really need to ask for that refund in full. I recognise that it may take some while to process, and that it's touch and go how much I'll get or quite when I'll get it but hey, it's not my fault that the festival didn't go ahead."
It was this part of the form that particularly annoyed Smith, who lives in west Dorset. She was not prepared to sign it, because it meant she was effectively accepting she may not get her money back, and she did not want another ticket. She says she has sent a number of emails requesting a refund but received automated replies directing her to the website.
"There are lots of us in the same boat, I'm sure. I'm annoyed that not only could I not enjoy the festival, but that my £115 has been in the hands of the directors for 10 months, with what appears to be little hope of a refund, even though the website informs ticket holders that it is their legal entitlement. I would have thought insurance to cover such an occurrence would be in place."
The normal standard adult price was £125. While the form talks about the possibility of putting their money towards the cause, the Glastonbury-based Big Green Gathering Co Ltd is not a charity; it describes itself on the website as a "not-for-profit democratic company".
And the suggestion people could accept a free ticket to next year's event should perhaps come with a warning, because it is far from certain there will be one. Monbiot wrote in August that the Big Green Gathering "will now go bankrupt. It's unlikely ever to happen again".
The website gives more details on refunds. It states that "We are still assessing the very damaging financial consequences of this enforced cancellation, and this will inevitably take some time, so we have to ask for your patience … Please do see if you can reuse your ticket at another event, as this reduces our overall debts and is one of the best ways to help keep the BGG in business."
It goes on: "Unfortunately, if you booked directly with us, either through our website or by sending a cheque to our office, the situation is a lot more complicated.
"The truth is that if everyone were to claim a refund from the BGG, there would not be enough money to go around, as we had spent nearly £300,000 on infrastructure and event costs … We know this is a big ask, but we are asking everyone who can to hold off requesting a refund for their tickets. If the BGG is to survive, we desperately need your support and co-operation in the short term, and expect to pay everyone in full with another event in 2010.
"Without that support, we could end up in the hands of the receivers, with our creditors (including ticket holders) ending up with only a small percentage of what they are owed."
Money tried to phone the number on the website but was met with a recorded message, saying: "Sorry, this mailbox is full, it can't accept any more messages." We emailed the organisation but have not received a reply.
Normally, if a gig or festival is cancelled, refunds should not be a problem, though whether you get all your money back will depend on who you booked with.
Ticketmaster will refund the face value of the ticket, plus the booking fee. By contrast, See Tickets will normally refund only the face value.
Austria's secret Santa's grotto
1257552338|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Glacier crevasses can be deathtraps for skiers, but a fluke of nature has given us a peek inside one – and into a frozen wonderland
For years I've been spooked by the memory of a friend who, having returned home early from a ski season, sat propped up in our local, nursing a pint with his leg in plaster, beneath which, he said, hundreds of metal pins held his shattered bones together.
And by those terrifying images of Joe Simpson, broken and barely alive, crawling his way out of oblivion from the bottom of what should have been his icy grave in Touching the Void. Both were lucky to survive, the hapless victims of that shadowy thing that haunts the dark corners of the mind of any skier or snowboarder who ventures off-piste on a glacier. The crevasse.
Deep cracks form in glacier ice, and can descend hundreds of metres, but are often hidden beneath a thin coating of snow, liable to collapse under a skier's weight and send them plummeting to near-certain death.
What it must be like to fall into one is unimaginably terrifying, and yet the morbid mind can't help but wonder, what would it look like down there. How would it feel, in the chilling depths between ice and more ice?
By a fluke of nature, curious skiers can now take a peek into the secret frozen netherworld, as a small, easily-accessed crevasse has been discovered on the Hintertux glacier in Austria. Found accidentally by a ski guide training a group of marines in the area the summer before last, the ice cave has been turned into a tourist attraction, negotiated by tunnels, walkways and ladders.
Last April I took a day out from the Snowbombing music festival in nearby Mayrhofen to travel by bus up the valley to the glacial resort of Hintertux, which offers fun off-piste, long runs and summer skiing. There I took the cable car to the resort's highest point at the top of the Gefrorene Wand (3,250m) and met a small group in a little mountaintop cabin, where our guide gave us all a hard hat to wear.
Leaving behind the sunny Zillertal mountain views and the skiers clipping in at the top of the pistes, we walked in single file over the curve of a powdery bank, passing wild west-like rock formations and descending along a path to a flattened area, where set into a bank of snow several metres deep was a circular hole, less than waist height, roughly covered with a wooden door. The guide directed us in, and one by one we squeezed inside, crawling along a tight snow tunnel. It was like Alice down the marmot hole.
Where the tunnel opened out, an electric lamp illuminated a ladder disappearing into another hole, which we clambered down in ski boots. I could not have predicted how beautiful it would be down in the crevasse: a blue chamber, shimmering turquoise and many other shades, sparkling like Christmas snow, with giant ice crystals and icicles dangling everywhere. This was what all Santa's grottos and Narnia scenes have tried to replicate.
Grasping handrails, ladder rungs and gingerly walking over wooden planks placed over the puddles of meltwater, we entered successive chambers. Long corridors with glassy walls of solid ice led to blue-tinged chambers filled with weird ice forms and crystals. One was bathed in red lamplight and made into a sort of chapel, with a crucifix.
The guide translated only parts of his German language tour to us, but explained the glacier is always shifting, around 1.5cm a month, which is measured with small nails hammered into the ice; we could hear the little creaks of movement. "We cannot be sure it will be accessible, or even still here, next year," he said.
After crossing a wooden bridge over alternate layers of dark and light ice, a feature of glaciation, we emerged into the chamber called the "ice palace". We were 25m below the ski pistes now, inside a dazzling white cavern, itself 15m high, which was hung with huge ice crystals and 7m stalactites, knife-like or knobbled and Gaudíesque. It was staggeringly beautiful, but what also struck me was how dead it felt down there. Surrounded by thousands of cubic metres of ice, totally cut off from anything living – no evidence of plant, animal or even microscopic life forms.
As we scrambled back towards the exit, my friend and I lagged behind to take some photos, soaking up the beauty of the scene by ourselves. The guide leaned back down and, as if he'd merely left us behind in his kitchen and not some fairyland, hollered, "Just turn the lights off and shut the door behind you when you leave!" Left alone, I began to think again of those who have fallen into the cold depths and been left for dead. Feeling twinges of empathy, I headed hastily for the exit tunnel, closing the magic portal to another world behind me.
• Nature's Ice Palace is open year round, €8 adults, €4 children. Lift pass for the Hintertuxer glacier resort, €40pp per day. Double rooms at the Hotel Berghof (00 43 5287 8585) in Hintertux cost from €83 per night.
Letters: Mature concern about man-made climate change
1257552330|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
I am a great admirer of George Monbiot, and am (I hope) as clear-sighted as he is about the self-inflicted disasters looming over our misguided species; but I must disagree with one point in his excellent dismantling of the "scepticism" of Clive James (Comment, 3 November). He claims that denial of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is commonest among people over 65, who feel they have worked hard and have the right to wing their way around the globe, merrily adding to the pollution.
I am 63 and I find my contemporaries infinitely more worried about the future of the planet than their children. In fact it constantly amazes me that so many well-informed people in their 30s shrug off environmental problems with the moronic comment that "scientists will find a solution". Yet these youngsters have small children of their own who, if crisis measures are not introduced, may die before they reproduce. My granddaughter will be three this month; if the rise of the sea-level and the degradation of natural resources continue at present rates, the planet will be barely habitable by the time she is 50. Shortages of food and water will have caused uncontrollable wars, droughts and floods will have displaced and killed hundreds of millions. It is not a pretty thought; but it has to be faced.
I agree with Monbiot that most people are in denial about it – denial caused by fear and their own impotence. But I have not noticed generational trends; only the usual forces of self-interest, preoccupation with narrow career issues, and feeble dependence of mind. Such things cut across all generations – or at least the few generations which remain before the day of reckoning and the conceited chatter of Clive James and his like is silenced.
Composer-in-residence, Clare College, Cambridge
• George Monbiot notes with concern the rise of climate change denial. But this is to be expected as large numbers of people begin to absorb the seriousness of scientists' predictions. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross worked with the dying and in her 1970 book, she suggests distinct stages in people coming to terms with impending disaster: First is simple denial, "It can't be true"; next anger, "Why me?"; then bargaining, "How can I get the least bad result?"; next depression, as attempts at former normality fail; and finally acceptance. These stages are visible over people's reactions to the growing scientific consensus. But while individual death is not avoidable, there is still much we can salvage for the Earth, if we are willing to live less greedily and more simply. It would be silly to give up campaigning because there is opposition.
Jenny Tillyard
Seaforde, Sussex
Two-year-olds at risk from 'gender-bending' chemicals, report says
1257542830|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
• EU council urged to look at cumulative effect
• Campaigners fear controls will not be tough enough
Two-year-old children are being exposed to dangerous levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals in domestic products such as rubber clogs and sun creams, according to an EU investigation being studied by the government.
The 327-page report says that while risks from "anti-androgen" and "oestrogen-like" substances in individual items have been recognised, the cumulative impact of such chemicals, particularly on boys, is being ignored.
The EU's environment council of ministers is due to agree on a regulatory approach to the use of so-called "gender-bender" compounds before Christmas. On Monday, EU officials will try to work out a strategy for creating risk assessments of products causing concerns. Environmental campaigners fear controls will favour industry and not be sufficiently robust.
Phthalates, one of the main anti-androgen chemicals, which are used as softeners in soap, rubber shoes, bath mats and soft toys, have been blamed for blocking the action of testosterone in the womb and are alleged to cause low sperm counts, high rates of testicular cancer and malformations of the sexual organs.
Research has suggested that male foetuses around 8-12 weeks after conception can be effectively demasculinised by exposure to such chemicals.
The report presented to the environment council and passed on to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) comes from Denmark, which has experienced a significant increase in the rates of testicular cancer.
The warnings are backed by the Chem (Chemicals Health and Environment Monitoring) Trust, a UK charity which has taken over campaigning work on toxic chemicals from the WWF (World Wildlife Fund).
The Danish study, Survey and Health Assessment of the exposure of two-year-olds to chemical substances in consumer products, concludes: "A few exposures to a high content of an endocrine-disruptor, such as that of [the phthalate] DBP in rubber clogs may result in a critical risk for the two-year-old.
"...The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [preservative] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system. This contribution originates predominantly from cosmetic products such as oil-based creams, moisturising creams, lotions and sunscreen.
"Not only is there a need to reduce exposure to anti-androgens and oestrogen-like substances from food products, indoor air and dust, but also to reduce exposure to [domestic] products, as these contribute to both indoor air and dust and to direct exposure.
"There is also a need to reduce possible contributions from other sources, such as propyl-, butyl- and isobutyl paraben in cosmetics, and phthalates in footwear (such as light-weight sandals and rubber boots)."
Gwynne Lyons, director of Chem Trust, said she feared the recommendations would not be heeded. "There are worries that Poland and the UK are more focused on protecting industry. Without public pressure, these countries will only agree to wording that sounds good, but actually falls short of ensuring that regulation is based on total exposure to, for example, so-called gender-bender chemicals.
"Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm, as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation, and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not."
Defra said: "Public safety is the government's priority, and we will be reading the Danish report with interest. The potential for "cocktail effects" from different chemicals should not be ignored, and we support the European Union's Environment Council's upcoming work on regulating combinations of chemicals."
The government's Interdepartmental Group on Health Risks from Chemicals has recently published a report offering a framework for assessing the risks of mixtures to human health. It suggested that cumulative risk assessment should not be the only way of approaching "cocktail effects".
Hormone disrupting chemicals in household products
• Phthalates are used in the manufacture of rubber clogs, rubber boots, soap packaging, products made from PVC, bath mats and soft toys. They are also found in food products as a result of environmental pollution, according to the Danish study.
• Oestrogen-like substances, including chemicals known as parabens, occur in cosmetics, sun creams and moisturising lotions.
• Pesticides, such as DDT, dioxins and PCBs, are also known hormone-disruptors.
Minister 'backs adviser autonomy'
1257542677|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Leaders 'likely' to go to summit
1257540648|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Forty leaders plan to attend climate talks: U.N.
1257537371|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Study suggests peat CO2 credits more valuable
1257534209|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Roger Moore can't persuade me | Agnès Poirier
1257534000|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
I know force-feeding is cruel, but the former James Bond's call to send foie gras the way of life's other pleasures must be resisted
I love Roger Moore and I love foie gras but the first wants to have the second banned. What cruel dilemma: que faire? Let me first explain my love for both. I know, Roger Moore is most often seen with sniggering contempt in Britain: he was never forgiven for offering a pale replacement for Sean Connery's formidable James Bond. I don't disagree, though it is hardly his fault, the producers should have known better.
Forget Bond, think The Persuaders. Remember the TV series? It flopped in the US, but was a huge hit in parts of Europe, and France in particular, where children such as me collapsed in fits of laughter in front of this most unlikely Anglo-American duo, Roger Moore and Tony Curtis, the English lord and the self-made millionaire. The reason for the series's success in France was almost entirely due to the talent of the two French actors, Claude Bertrand and Michel Roux, who dubbed the two stars, improvising a much wittier dialogue than the original. And there was the John Barry's opening tune of course. Case settled: I love Roger Moore.
I also love goose and duck foie gras, especially the mi-cuit terrine or, better still, a delicately fried fresh lobe served on the back of a duck magret. Of course, I know that to obtain these luxury and divine delicacies, geese and ducks must be force-fed which, I agree with Roger chéri and his friends at Peta, is inconsiderate. I also know the technique goes back to 2500BC and the ancient Egyptians. But civilisation, even the oldest one, couldn't possibly offer an excuse for such barbaric practice: we're on animal rights territory here, a dangerous place for any French food lover. So is there a humane way of getting foie gras? Well, not really. You can let the birds eat as much as they want in winter as they prepare to migrate but this will only fatten them up slightly and not give the foie gras which, ancient Egyptian and contemporary French producers say, can only be produced by gavage (force-feeding). The only solution, according to animal right activists, is that we give up foie gras entirely and have legislation passed to criminalise the producers.
Another pleasure to go down the drain after smoking, drinking and parental spanking. If we ban foie gras, I suggest we also ban human force-feeding, you know, obesity, and make it a crime for all who encourage it and all who indulge in it. Cadbury should be forced to close down, so should Häagen Dazs and many others, and let's lock up everyone with a BMI above 25. Yes, you, filthy foie gras eater.
Climate talks end in acrimony as poorer nations threaten walk-out Copenhagen
1257531655|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Yvo de Boer says US target is essential as poor countries threaten walk-out at Copenhagen
The last formal negotiations before the global summit on climate change in Copenhagen concluded in acrimony today, with developing countries threatening to walk out of the December conference unless rich countries commit themselves to far greater cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
While the countries remain officially optimistic that a strong global warming treaty can be struck, they are privately braced for a weak outcome which heads of state will sign, but the public and scientists will condemn as much too little to prevent catastrophic global warming.
In addition, the US and Europe put themselves on a collision course with the world's poorest countries by repeating demands that the existing Kyoto treaty be scrapped in favour of a single new international treaty.
It was announced by the UN that more than 40 heads of state have agreed to go to Copenhagen, including Gordon Brown and others from Europe, Africa and South America, and many more are expected. It is recognition that the only way a legally binding deal will be concluded is with the highest level political involvement.
Ironically, the involvement of the heads of state will give negotiators much less time to bridge what appears to be nearly insurmountable gaps between positions, thereby forcing the talks to continue well into 2010. Earlier this week, the US, EU and UK accepted that an enforceable deal would take at least six months to finalise.
"Little progress was made [this week] on the key issues of emission targets and finance that would allow developing countries to limit their emissions and adapt to climate change," said Yvo de Boer, the UN director of the talks. "Without these two pieces of the puzzle in place we will not have a deal. Leadership at the highest level is now required to unlock the pieces".
The 130 developing countries represented by the G77 group said today they would walk out of Copenhagen if rich countries did not offer far deeper emission cuts and more money. "If there are no ambitious targets and timetables in the first few days then there will definitely be a reaction," said Lumumba Di-Aping, chair of the G77.
Jonathan Pershing, the US chief negotiator, denied the US was holding up the talks by not naming a figure for its cuts and refused to say whether the US would go to Copenhagen with a figure. "If we were to do a 17% reduction or a 20% cut I'm not sure it would make a difference to the talks," he said.
But the UN, EU and NGOs all said the US was endangering years of negotiations, and hopes of tackling global warming, if it did not come up with firm targets. "We need a figure from the US. It is very important for a deal to have the biggest emitter there with a concrete figure which should be legally binding," said Anders Torrson, the Swedish chief negotiator.
"A US target is essential. If the US can deliver that target [in Copenhagen] that will give a critical signal," said de Boer.
NGOs said there was everything still to play for. "This is the darkest hour. There is enough time. Consensus is not forming around a weak deal. That is only wishful thinking by industrialised countries. Developing countries are fighting for their survival," said Greenpeace climate director Martin Kaiser.
"The EU countries should be prepared to cut themselves loose from the US or risk losing a climate deal. World leaders cannot wait while the US plays catch-up. Rich countries are using the US as an excuse to put their national interests above alleviating the suffering of the millions of people," said Antonio Hill, climate adviser for Oxfam.
In a series of impassioned speeches, poor countries accused the US and EU of putting the talks and planet at risk. "They are negotiating for themselves and not humanity," said Angelica Navarro, Bolivian ambassador to Switzerland. "They must go beyond the individual interests of each country and put the interests of the world first."
However, progress was made on a technology agreement, reducing emissions from deforestation in poor countries, and ways to distribute funds to help countries adapt to climate change.
Centres of technological excellence are likely to be set up around the world which would have staff trained to help poor countries with renewable energy.
Civil unrest has a role in stopping climate change, says Gore
1257529696|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Ahead of Copenhagen summit, former US vice-president says 'non-violent lawbreaking' is legitimate in persuading governments to cut emissions
Al Gore has sought to inject fresh momentum into the Copenhagen build-up, saying he is certain Barack Obama will attend and predicting a rise in civil disobedience against fossil-fuel polluters unless drastic action is taken over global warming.
Amid increasing incidents of climate protesters disrupting the operations of fossil-fuel industries and airports in Britain and elsewhere, Gore suggests the scale of the emergency means non-violent lawbreaking is justified. "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play," he says. "And I expect that it will increase, no question about it."
In his only UK newspaper interview to mark the publication of his new book, entitled Our Choice, Gore says it is crucial for Obama to attend Copenhagen in person, adding: "I feel certain that he will."
He remains optimistic, he insists, that the US Senate will pass a climate change bill before Copenhagen – a move widely seen as vital for persuading the world, especially developing countries, that the US is serious about reducing emissions.
But Gore was speaking before reports this week that Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, would back Republican demands for a full cost analysis of any such legislation – a process that could take five weeks, postponing debate until after the Copenhagen summit.
On Thursday the UK climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, acknowledged that hopes were fading that Copenhagen would result in a full treaty.
Nevertheless, there are "surprises … in store" on a potential Senate bill, Gore says, citing confidential conversations between Democrats and Republicans in which he has been involved. This week Democrats made small but significant progress when they pushed the bill through a vital committee stage despite a Republican boycott.
Yucatan wonders
1257527582|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Climate activists fast to push leaders to sign strong deal at Copenhagen
1257527340|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Anna Keenan and Sara Svensson expected to be joined by at least 150 others as 'moral response to an immoral situation'
Scores of environmental activists from five continents have begun a fast to put pressure on countries to agree a strong deal at climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month.
Two of the activists, Anna Keenan 24, an Australian, and Sara Svensson 22, a Swede, launched their water-only Climate Justice Fast today at climate talks in Barcelona, and expect to go without food for more than a month until environment officialsmeet in Copenhagen.
They called their action "a moral response to an immoral situation" and expect to be joined by hundreds of other young people in Australia, Europe and the US who will fast for shorter periods.
"The whole world needs to wake up to the tragedy of climate change. Politics as usual is a massive injustice to the poorest people, the planet and to future generations," said Anna Keenan, an Australian who has degrees in physics, maths and environmental studies and has worked as a government adviser.
Svensson admitted to being inspired by Gandhi: "Fasting is the one weapon that God has given us in times of utter helplessness. This is such a time. I do not intend to go into this as a kamikaze suicide
mission," she said. "I do this out of love of life. I hope it will inspire others. Your goal in life cannot be to just be comfortable and ignore the consequences. This is a positive act."
The two women, who have long histories of campaigning, said that other forms of activism have not worked. They will now travel by boat to Copenhagen next week, and will be under medical supervision throughout.
"We are not asking people to join us. But a large number of people have said they want to join in. At least 150 people are fasting today and others will join us on a rotational basis," said Keenan.
They were backed in Barcelona by Agnes Kushanl, a Kenyan aid agency worker with Cafod: "I applaud them. Many people in my country are dying from hunger because of the failed rains. We need more such courage. The people who have contributed least to climate change are suffering the most. It is really, really bad back home."
Studies 'overstate species risks'
1257524737|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Dry U.S. Midwest weather bodes well for harvest
1257523907|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
EU to fight for tuna protection at global talks
1257522837|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Floods could threaten up to 750,000 in Kenya
1257521197|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
We're doomed without a green religion | Andrew Brown
1257519242|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Arguments about climate change show up the incoherence of any purely individual morality
The justification for burning heretics was perfectly simple: dissent threatened the survival of society. Nothing was worse than anarchy. This is a viewpoint most people in the West today find pretty much incomprehensible. It is a self-evident truth to them that morality must be a matter of individual choice. And if you believe that, the arguments around the Tim Nicholson case are very difficult to resolve. If there is a moral imperative to preserve the human race, or as much of it as possible, collective consequences must follow. It is not enough for us to do the right thing. Others must as well. If you don't believe that, then there is no point in agitating for success in Copenhagen.
But if collective consequences follow, others must be forced to do things against their will by our moral imperatives. This is exactly the quality that is supposed to be so very obnoxious about religion.
The idea that morality is and must be a matter of individual choice is taken as axiomatic in these debates. It is thought true in the sense that it is held to describe a fact about the world. Very often the same people who believe this will also believe, and maintain with equal vehemence in other contexts the belief that morals are merely opinions, or at least that there couldn't in the nature of things be moral facts: true or false statements about whether something or someone is good or bad.
This was neatly if not nicely expressed by one of the commenters on Tim Nicholson's article here, who said
You may believe less flying and driving, and more wind farms, and so on to be moral imperatives. I don't. You are entitled to your beliefs, and should not be persecuted for them. But they are just beliefs. You want to argue the politics of how to respond to climate change: great. But you can stop wrapping your proposed solutions up in 'moral imperative' cotton wool.
These are not the only confusions which the Nicholson case raises. Many people who are upset by the court's equating a scientific opinion with a religion belief suppose that science is true and rational, religion is false and irrational, and that this division of the world is itself factual and rational. If this is how the world appears to you, then there is no question that climate change is not a religion. That would mean that it wasn't really happening, and that we were free to ignore it. Both supporters and opponents of environmentalism can often agree both that it might be a religion and that would be a bad thing. This is why, in general, the people who maintain that environmentalism is like a religion are opposed to it; while those in favour deny it is anything like a religion. (A further complication is supplied by right-wing Christians like Daniel Johnson who maintain that religion is a good thing, but environmentalism is a false religion.)
But can this sharp distinction between truth and falsity, fact and value, actually describe the world? The unexamined assumption is that we can split the world into a sphere of facts and a sphere of opinions and that the facts will speak for themselves. And, as a matter of fact, that is false. I'm not caliming here that there are no facts, or that there are only opinions, or that science is only socially constructed. I just need to point out that fact and opinion are not two distinct substances.
Myles Allen wrote yesterday: "I don't ask anyone to believe in human influence on climate because I do, or because thousands of other scientists do. I ask them to look at the evidence." But while this is an admirable ideal, it is wholly impossible in practice. You cannot believe in science if you do not also believe in scientists. That is why the faking of results is such a terrible threat to the whole enterprise. Nor is "evidence" a a simple thing visible to the naked eye. Without quite a specialised education, the nature and force of scientific evidence is quite literally invisible. Even when the evidence is overwhelming there will always be smart and otherwise well-educated people to ignore it if they have other more powerful reasons to do so. The instinct of most scientists is to suppose that this can be cured by teaching people science. But that's never going to work, however desirable it is for other reasons. Scientists want to be believed becasuse of the truth they are telling is so overwhelming as to make trust unnecessary, but in practice they will either be trusted or ignored.
There is a strand of atheism, or perhaps of anti-theism, which redefines "religion" to include all forms of collective faith, chiefly communism. Although this may have originated as a rhetorical move in order to deny that the communists who killed millions of Christians were actually atheists, it does express something deeper: a conviction that compulsion in the name of any belief is itself immoral. Now whether anyone actually truly and consistently believes this is another question. What matters in this context is that lots of people believe that they do believe it.
Climate change makes that position entirely incoherent. Because it is a global tragedy of the commons, individual action cannot be enough. I cannot ensure the survival of my grandchildren, nor even yours, without compelling you to behave in ways that science tells me are necessary. Not to act, not to coerce, itself becomes immoral.
There is a further twist to the argument. Compulsion will be needed but compulsion alone won't do it. People aren't made like that. They need to believe in what they are forced to do. They need idealism, and that will also mean its dark side: the pressure of conformism, the force of self-righteousness, huge moral weight attached to practically useless gestures like unplugging phone chargers. They need, in fact, something that does look a lot like religion. But we can't engineer it. It can only arise spontaneously. Should that happen, the denialists, who claim that it is all a religion, will for once be telling the truth, and when they do that, they'll have lost. I just hope it doesn't happen too late.
10:10: Picasso print enters frame to fight climate change
1257516716|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Signed linocut by Picasso offered in 10:10 competition
Ever fancied owning an original Picasso? How about a signed one? And what if it was also something that helped the fight against global warming? Well, the dreams of one art-loving environmentalist will soon come true.
The 10:10 campaign plans to give away an original, signed linocut made by Pablo Picasso in 1956. Vallauris is a linocut printed in five colours, each made from a separate block.
Picasso produced a series of linocuts from 1951 to 1964, which were used as posters for an annual exhibition of ceramics in the southern French town of Vallauris, where the Catalan artist had settled in 1948. The town is famed for its ceramics, arts and crafts exhibitions and bullfighting. Picasso made many of his ceramic artworks near Vallauris, in the local Madoura pottery.
Now the Vallauris linocut will enter history in a new role — raising money to fight climate change. To win the artwork, entrants can buy as many tickets as they wish to enter (each priced at £10.10) and answer a question about Picasso's work. Correct entries will be drawn from a proverbial hat on 31 January next year and all proceeds go to the 10:10 campaign.
"Short of robbing a gallery, this is the best chance that us ordinary mortals have of getting our hands on a Picasso. And you'll be saving the planet at the same time," said Franny Armstrong, founder of the 10:10 campaign. "If we could sell 100,000 tickets, we could run the whole campaign for another 18 months."
The 65cm by 54cm artwork, valued at around £4,500, is one of a few printer's proofs made by Impremerie Arnera in 1956 and printed on Arches paper by the Association des potiers de Vallauris. It was donated to the 10:10 campaign by art dealer and philanthropist Fred Mulder.
Are cyclist deaths really increasing?
1257515977|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
The latest figures showing cycling casualties have alarmed campaigners. How worried should they be?
Statistics for cycling deaths and injuries, as with all such figures, should be treated with caution when taken on their own. A year-on-year rise of 19% for a three-month period, as reported yesterday, sounds alarming, but cycle campaigners warn that it could be skewed by a series of factors over such a small period, and is also slightly meaningless when taken without the context of an expected surge in rider numbers for the period, statistics for which are not yet out.
Another key point to note is that deaths and serious injuries among cyclists are still around a third less than the 1994-98 average, despite the ever-increasing hordes of bikes on the road – between 2007 and 2008, rider numbers grew by more than 10%.
Groups like the CTC are hopeful that the latest casualty figures will be just a blip. There is a well-accepted notion for cycling, known as safety in numbers, which decrees that in general, as the number of cyclists on the roads increases, each rider's chance of being hurt reduces. For example, the average cyclist in Denmark rides over 10 times further than his or her British peer every year but runs only 20% of the risk of being killed.
These are the figures. What do you think?
Download the data
• DATA: download the full datasheet
Can you do something with this data?
Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group or mail us at datastore@guardian.co.uk
• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
Data summary
Week in wildlife
1257513840|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
From new-born seal pups to Peruvian macaws – the pick of this week's best images from the natural world
We cannot fight climate with consumerism
1257512377|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Small actions allow people to overlook the bigger ones and still claim they are being environmentally responsible
How many times have you heard the argument that small green actions lead to bigger ones?
I've heard it hundreds of times: habits that might scarcely register in their own right are still useful because they encourage people to think of themselves as green, and therefore to move on to tougher actions.
A green energy expert once tried to convince me that even though rooftop micro wind turbines are useless or worse than useless in most situations, they're still worth promoting because they encourage people to think about their emissions. It's a bit like the argument used by anti-drugs campaigners: the soft stuff leads to the hard stuff.
I've never been convinced by this argument. In my experience, people use the soft stuff to justify their failure to engage with the hard stuff. Challenge someone about taking holiday flights six times a year and there's a pretty good chance that they'll say something along these lines:
I recycle everything and I re-use my plastic bags, so I'm really quite green.
A couple of years ago a friend showed me a cutting from a local newspaper: it reported that a couple had earned so many vouchers from recycling at Tesco that they were able to fly to the Caribbean for a holiday.
The greenhouse gases caused by these flights outweigh any likely savings from recycling hundreds or thousands of times over, but the small actions allow people to overlook the big ones and still believe that they are environmentally responsible.
Being a cynical old git, I have always been deeply suspicious of the grand claims made for consumer democracy: that we can change the world by changing our buying habits. There are several problems with this approach:
• In a consumer democracy, some people have more votes than others, and those with the most votes are the least inclined to change a system that has served them so well.
• A change in consumption habits is seldom effective unless it is backed up by government action. You can give up your car for a bicycle - and fair play to you - but unless the government is simultaneously reducing the available road space, the place you've vacated will just be taken by someone who drives a less efficient car than you would have driven (traffic expands to fill the available road-space). Our power comes from acting as citizens - demanding political change - not acting as consumers.
• We are very good at deceiving ourselves about our impacts. We remember the good things we do and forget the bad ones.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't always try to purchase the product with the smallest impact: you should. Nor am I suggesting that all ethical consumption is useless. Fairtrade products make a real difference to the lives of the producers who sell them; properly verified goods - like wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or fish approved by the Marine Stewardship Council - are likely to cause much less damage than the alternatives. But these small decisions allow us to believe that our overall performance is better than it really is.
So I wasn't surprised to see a report in Nature this week suggesting that buying green products can make you behave more selfishly than you would otherwise have done. Psychologists at the University of Toronto subjected students to a series of cunning experiments (pdf). First they were asked to buy a basket of products; selecting either green or conventional ones. Then they played a game in which they were asked to allocate money between themselves and someone else. The students who had bought green products shared less money than those who had bought only conventional goods.
The researchers call this the "licensing effect". Buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour: the rosier your view of yourself, the more likely you are to hoard your money and do down other people.
Then they took another bunch of students, gave them the same purchasing choices, then introduced them to a game in which they made money by describing a pattern of dots on a computer screen. If there were more dots on the right than the left they made more money. Afterwards they were asked to count the money they had earned out of an envelope.
The researchers found that buying green had such a strong licensing effect that people were likely to lie, cheat and steal: they had established such strong moral credentials in their own minds that these appeared to exonerate them from what they did next. Nature uses the term "moral offset", which I think is a useful one.
So perhaps guilt is good after all. Campaigners are constantly told that guilt-tripping people is counterproductive: we have to make people feel better about themselves instead. These results suggest that this isn't very likely to be true. They also offer some fascinating insights into the human condition. Maybe the cruel old Christian notion of original sin wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Barcelona diary: Russia keeps everyone in dark and Pershing scores direct hit
1257508415|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Russia tries to hang on to its carbon credits, UK wins a fossil booby prize and US negotiator charms the Indians
Russia's credit riches
Russia is such a dark horse at these talks that you would barely know it was here, let alone it was the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Not only does the country give no briefings or make any public appearances, it has steadfastly refused to divulge its position. What it is clearly trying to do in secret negotiations, though, is hang on to its 4-6billion "assigned amount units" (AAUs) — effectively credits to emit billions of tonnes of carbon. These go back to the early 1990s before Russia's economy crashed, but they are still valid and if Russia is allowed to carry them over into another Kyoto round, it will be able to go for years without having to even think about reducing emissions. Indeed, when other countries' AAUs are included, there exists the real possibility that the rich world could effectively sign up to a deal that only forces it to cut emissions by 6% on 1990 figures. That's a 1% increase on cuts agreed at Kyoto 1997. That's progress.
New shoots for forest plan
Yesterday we berated the EU for not putting language that protected natural forests back into the proposed final text. This provoked an immediate response: in a new "open non-paper" (no 39) we find the key words restored but with some major differences. Not only has the protection been watered down, but a country that must remain nameless (OK, it's the US) has put brackets round some of it. That effectively means that forest protection is still open to negotiation. Someone out there really wants plantation palm oil forests to be seen as the same as old growth forests.
Gushing and Pershing
It's just a straw in the wind, but sometimes the body language of negotiators says it all. Jonathan Pershing, the US chief negotiator, was spotted this morning being greeted by a clearly overjoyed Indian delegation. "We have just had a meeting with your team. It went very well indeed," said the Indians. Pershing was also effusive. Does this mean the Indians and the US have stitched up a deal? Who knows, but whispers from inside the talks suggest that it is moving to distance itself from the G77, the political grouping of poor countries which it traditionally sits with, and wants to sit at the rich man's table.
US and UK land fossils booby prize
At the end of every negotiating day, the massed ranks of the non-government groups award "fossils" to the country they think has done the most to set the talks back. Yesterday the US and Britain were joint winners of the prestigious but dishonourable award for their statements that a legally binding agreement could be delayed by very many months.
Who are your heroes on two wheels?
1257507130|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
In the wake of the London mayor's heroics this week, we want your stories of cycling's good samaritans
Guardian reader Lissendis commented on one of this blog's recent posts:
This bike blog is getting a bit depressing. It seems as if the purpose of most of the recent threads is to get us all moaning about something.
Ample evidence of moany postings was supplied, with the plea:
Can we have a few more happy bike blogs please?
Lissendis is right. Cycling should be a happy activity; sometimes even a heroic one. So today let us salute those people – plumbers, hairdressers, shopkeepers, mayors – who become something special when they get in the saddle.
Here are five of this blog's heroes on two wheels.
Boris Johnson
This is a straightforward tale of a mayor becoming a "knight on a shining bicycle". A lady is being menaced by three 10-year-old girls. Enter hero on wheels, blond of hair, burly of stature. He faces them down. They have an iron bar; they decide against using it. He calls them oiks. They flee.
Anonymous (i)
In training for a charity bike ride across Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia, Adrian Scarlett was cycling in Allerton, Liverpool, when he sensed that two people in a stationary car up ahead planned to do him harm. He gave the car a wide berth but they drove after him anyway and pushed him off his bike into the road. Enough to make many people give up cycling, at least for a while – but enter an anonymous hero. "A cyclist came and helped me," said the now-philosophical Scarlett, "so that's two sorts of people I've met in one day."
Anonymous (ii)
The Stockport cyclist who got a woman's bag back from a mugger in April after seeing the victim punched in the head. It's one thing to stop and offer comfort, something else to risk a knife in the guts to get the stolen item back. Police applauded the cyclist's "heroic actions" and urged him to come forward.
Andy Dangerfield
In a scene with all the tragedy and horror of a battlefield (read the London Evening Standard account if you doubt it), Dangerfield got off his bike to try to help fellow cyclist Chrystelle Brown after she was crushed by a lorry in Whitechapel. He attempted first-aid, assessed her injuries, and cycled to a nearby hospital to summon an ambulance in the shortest possible time. Despite all this, Miss Brown died of her injuries. A sobering reminder that all the altruism and presence-of-mind in the world sometimes isn't enough.
Gino Bartali
A one-time Tour de France winner finds himself pedalling around the Italian countryside, carrying forged documents from one member of a secretive organisation to another. Sounds very shady, and distinctly unheroic – but this was the second world war, and the organisation was dedicated to saving Jewish citizens from the Nazis. Bartali saved many hundreds of lives by his courier work (and incidentally went on to win the Tour de France again – chapeau!)
Over to you – which other cycling heroes deserve recognition?
The quest to save world's rarest duck - the Madagascar pochard
1257506718|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
How 'spirit bears' use their appearance to fish successfully
1257506609|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Earth Watch
1257506376|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Environment Agency urges bigger fines for polluters
1257504299|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Government watchdog makes appeal to courts as latest statistics show 13% fall in serious pollution cases since 2007
The courts were today urged by the government's environment watchdog to issue tougher fines for environmental pollution.
The Environment Agency said bigger fines would send out a strong message to polluters that their behaviour would not be tolerated.
Its latest pollution statistics reveal that the number of cases of serious pollution in England and Wales dropped 13% from 827 in 2008 to 723 in 2007.
This was down 44% from the 1,854 major incidents recorded in 2001, the Agency said.
Yorkshire and the north east of England, and the north west of England were the regions with the highest number of serious incidents caused by industry in 2008.
The Environment Agency said its approach of targeting those whose activities have the highest environmental risks, or whose environmental track records are poor, has helped reduce the number of incidents of serious pollution.
Last year, it successfully brought 722 cases against companies and individuals for environmental offences, resulting in fines and costs of £5.3 million.
The average fine against companies in 2008 was £10,080 – up from £8,229 the previous year.
The Environment Agency said this was encouraging evidence that the courts were recognising the growing seriousness of incidents.
Two of the biggest company fines were for Western Wines, in Telford, who were forced to pay £225,000 for flouting packaging waste regulations and Anglian Water, who were fined £150,000 for repeated illegal discharging from sewage treatment works.
It also brought several cases against individuals that resulted in custodial sentences.
Patrick Anderson and James Kelleher pleaded guilty to dumping nearly 15,000 tonnes of rubbish in Essex and London and in June 2008 received sentences of 22 months and 14 months respectively.
Harvey Gibson was jailed for a total of 32 months last October after being found guilty of dumping 85 tonnes of waste in a field near Reading.
Environment Agency chief executive, Dr Paul Leinster, said: "We want to see higher fines for pollution incidents to provide a greater deterrent. There are still an average of two serious pollution incidents a day and this is too many."
IEA: Low-carbon plans to cause gas glut
1257504175|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Agency predicts greater investment in nuclear and renewables will reduce European reliance on Russia. From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Improvements in energy efficiency and wider deployment of low-carbon technologies could reduce global gas consumption by five per cent by 2015 and 17 per cent by 2030 compared to a business-as-usual scenario, according to new projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The Financial Times reported yesterday that a draft version of the IEA's World Energy Outlook, the flagship annual report due for release next week, shows that the planned rollout of renewable and nuclear energy programmes should begin to significantly eat into demand for natural gas within the next five years.
It predicted that even with the projected economic recovery, European demand for gas will not recover to 2008 levels of 542 billion cubic metres (bcm) until 2020 before then dropping back to 525bcm by 2030.
As a result, gas is likely to become oversupplied and prices are predicted to fall, reducing Europe's reliance on Russia as its major supplier.
In addition, the report said that in the US the identification of large reserves of gas trapped in shale rocks has opened up vast new areas of supply, eradicating the need for liquefied natural gas imports from abroad.
A supply crunch in gas has long been a concern of political leaders and is a major factor in Euro-Russian relations. The IEA estimates Russia holds a quarter of the world's gas reserves.
Some experts have feared that the carbon caps imposed through the EU's emissions trading scheme will lead to greater reliance on gas from 2020 onwards as energy generators switch from coal to gas as a less carbon-intensive alternative.
But the IEA report argues that environmental policies designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions, will only provide a short term boost for gas, predicting that gas demand will peak in the early 2020s as energy firms increasingly focus on renewables and nuclear.
In another section of the report released by the agency last month, the IEA said that economic crisis had deferred investment in polluting technologies and as a result CO2 emissions could fall in 2009 by as much as three per cent - steeper than at any time in the last 40 years.
The agency said that this recession-induced drop in emissions gave world leaders a unique opportunity to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy by cancelling postponed carbon-intensive projects and shifting the focus to low-carbon alternatives.
Babies 'cry in mother's tongue'
1257503936|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
China says studying weaker framework climate deal
1257499243|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Getting warm
1257497875|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Australia attacks Copenhagen critics
1257489101|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover ( Reuters: Environment)
Top 10 ski resorts by rail
1257483600|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Plan a greener, flight-free ski trip this winter with our brilliant interactive guide to reaching 10 resorts by train
Liz Hurley's guilt-free beef jerky
1257465930|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Yes, it's dried meat snacks with added stardust
At last, the most ludicrous celebrity product of all time: close your eyes and begin salivating for Liz Hurley's beef jerky.
That, my ducks, is in no way a euphemism: rather it is the first foodstuff to be commercially produced by madam's organic farm in Gloucestershire. For those unaware of this agrarian idyll, it provides the backdrop for the charming tableaux of rural life with which Liz is given to providing various glossy magazines every six months. Here she is on a swing wearing stilettos; there she is giggling suggestively at a goat (ballgown by Oscar de la Renta). Along with dressing her son like a button-shoed, pre-teen royal circa 1956, the whole country lady shtick is part of Liz's enduringly hilarious campaign to present herself as a sort of white-jeaned Mitford sister (non-Nazi model), when in fact she grew up in suburban Basingstoke and is about as To the Manor Born as Cher.
To be honest, Lost in Showbiz had assumed the farm was merely a set built on an otherwise defunct soundstage owned by Liz's madly unproductive production company, Simian Films – but it seems that Hurley's Hameau really exists. And it is now your go-to source for celebrity branded, naturally low calorie beef jerky.
Due to go on sale this week, the packet of said jerky shows a drawing of Elizabeth lying on the ground in a black cocktail dress, kicking her bright-pink wellington boots coquettishly. The product is billed as "a guilt-free snack" . . . and yet, is it? Is it really? Is there not something about being the type of person who would spent £1.95 on a small dried meat snack purveyed by the star of Passenger 57 that would engender the most debilitating feelings of shame and bad conscience in anyone? Something for the Advertising Standards Authority to contemplate, either way.
From the archive: Outrages in Kent
1257465923|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Originally published on 6 November 1830
We fear it cannot be denied that a considerable portion of the peasantry of Kent is in a state of reckless insubordination. Outrages on property of the most alarming description are manifestly on the increase. Bodies of men almost nightly, and of late even by day, assemble and proceed from one farm-house to another, destroying in the most open and daring manner the agricultural machinery on the premises;—and, far worse, the secret incendiary plies his dreadful occupation with a frequency and success that must, if continued, ere long desolate the whole country. Alarm prevails all around.
Since our last publication, several serious fires have occurred, and demolition of threshing-machines been committed in every district of East Kent. Leniency and severity seem alike employed in vain. The unexpectedly lenient sentence passed by magistrates on some convicted rioters seems equally [as with prison sentences] to have failed in impressing favourably the minds of those associated in crime.
The fact is, that the labouring classes have been long borne down, oppressed in every way by their superiors, and by the political system upheld by their superiors. They have been gradually thrust down, and trampled on, despised, driven to starvation, misery, and despair. The tendency of the whole social arrangement in England for many years has been to foster and protect the great properties at the expense of the poor and industrious. The labourer has been literally ground down to the very dust. Every law, every tax, every consequent change in manners, has been prejudicial to him. Consolidation of estates, destruction of small farms, enclosure of common lands, heavy impositions on the necessaries of life, the accursed game laws, the vexatious tyranny exercised by the rural magistracy, the canting, hypocritic interference with his few remaining pleasures under the pretence of teaching him religion and morality, form part of the list of those "unfavourable circumstances" which have made him what he is.
The bond which once attached the agricultural labourer to his employer has long, too, been severed. The farmer was once looked up to by his servants as their friend, and almost their father. They formed as it were a part of his family, generally seated at the same board, and partaking to a degree of the comforts of a common home. All this has passed away. An insuperable barrier has been raised between the "parlour" and the "kitchen". The servant has not been recognised any more than as a labouring animal on the estate. The master has been a gentleman, and the servant sunk into a brutal slave. At last human nature refused any further endurance without bitter complaint.
Country diary: Shetland
1257465904|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Shetland
Whoever said that returning to a familiar place after a long time away makes you see it differently was certainly right: everything seems new. As the ferry cautiously inches up to her berth after a wild overnight trip, how huge Lerwick looks, with its mix of old and new buildings rising up the hillside. After nearly a year in South Uist, where most roads are single track, the road north seems like a highway as it leads out of town. Machair and mountain are replaced by rounded rolling hills patterned with colour changes where the greener inbye land is divided from the autumn brown of the rougher hill.
But there is also a contrasting sense of welcoming familiarity. The ravens are in their usual place, where the road climbs uphill – there are five of them today. Two adults with this year's young or a small winter gathering? Here are the Shetland ponies, also in their usual place, rotund and furry, tails trailing on the ground and winter coats already grown in. It is dry today, but the little roadside waterfall is full, and where the water hits an awkward rock in its zig-zag course a spout leaps skyward, a sure sign that it has been raining heavily in previous days.
Finally I reach the last few miles along our own single track roads. Here is a house newly painted, there a few changes in a garden. No whooper swans on the loch this morning, but a few ducks. At the curve of the little bay, what was a semi-derelict outbuilding now sports a Faroese-style turf roof, the stone walls and new roof blending beautifully with the landscape. Arriving at the house, I turn off the engine, step out of the car, and breathe deeply, smelling the sweetness of autumn moorland. Rounding the corner, heading for the front door, I am almost bowled off my feet by the wind, and wrestling to open the gate against its force I know I am really home.
Letters: Tory indecision and division over Europe
1257465902|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
It is perhaps both alarming and predictable that it has taken the intervention of France's Europe minister to bring the Conservative party's position on Europe to the fore (France: 'autistic Tories castrated UK', 5 November). The French position makes it clear that the Conservatives are misguided, reactionary and engaging in damaging political posturing. So how is it to be explained? The simple answer is that the party remains wracked by indecision and division over Europe and that Cameron is following a long line of Conservative leaders in talking tough on Europe for political gain.
Yet there is potentially a more insidious aspect to Cameron's position. In talking tough on Europe, he is coming dangerously close to the language used by both the BNP and Ukip on this issue – pandering to political extremism, isolationism and petty nationalism. To this degree, the Conservatives are following generations of the debate on immigration and asylum, with politicians mainstreaming arguments which should be marginalised. It is time to reject such approaches and to acknowledge that, while the EU is not perfect, Britain's best interests are served by operating at its heart.
Lecturer in EU public policy, University of Leeds
• The Guardian's very full coverage of Cameron's "pitiful" unveiling of Tory policy on Europe (Editorial, 5 November) properly reflects the political significance of his embarrassment over the Lisbon treaty and the rejection of the European People's Party group in favour of a group of minor rightwing parties in Europe.
By contrast the BBC's flagship evening news on Wednesday did not report on Cameron's response until 20 minutes into the programme. The coverage was comparatively slight and lacked any of the forensic analysis and critical glee that duly attends any embarrassment on the government side.
There is a temptation to fear that in some respects the BBC News editorial approach is somewhat cowed when it comes to looking at Tory policy. I wonder whether you had that in mind when you juxtaposed an inset into your Cameron's Europe Crisis report a piece (Medi
a messages, 5 November) on how the Tory leader threatens to "rein in" the BBC while giving more licence to Murdoch's media empire.
Roger Truelove
Sittingbourne, Kent
• Mr Cameron's Tories cry foul at the lack of consultation before the Lisbon treaty was ratified – but where was their concern for Britons' approval when China joined the World Trade Organisation? Why weren't we asked before BA, BP, BT and the rest were privatised? And what is their excuse for ignoring UK public opinion when Tony Blair took us to war?
All these events had – and will continue to have – far profounder effects on our lives than the Lisbon treaty.
The Tories' anger is disingenuous. It panders to the Little Englandism among their members and as they cosy up to the ultra-rightists in the European parliament, they will indeed "castrate" the British position and further isolate our point of view from important decision-making in Europe.
Eurof Thomas
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
• It is possible to be globally outward-looking and patriotically British. As Churchill observed after the second world war, our best path lay in going forward with our European neighbours. Under the current 27 EU nations this now numbers almost half a billion in population, a good third more than the US. How potentially great is that?
The Hague–Cameron extremist pact would do well to remember that our British historical roots, in the main, derive from a melange of European tribes – from the Celts and Anglo-Saxons to the Danes and Normans. But Eurosceptic MPs and MEPs will have us all sidelined as little islanders ranting and raving, snapping and sniping at our brothers. Never forget that western democratic ideals were pan-European from the days of ancient Greece through to the French revolution and Britain's universal suffrage.
Roz Denny
Fittleworth, West Sussex
• For Pierre Lellouche to compare thousands of the most innocent, honest and straightforward members of society to the compromised, corrupt and institutionally opportunist Conservative party is breathtakingly offensive. I sincerely hope he is not reflecting the attitudes of M Sarkozy, and I call on him to apologise.
S Clarke
Cambridge
• The Tories most certainly have lost power and influence in the European parliament since leaving the largest group in the European parliament, and it is absurd for Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the British Tory MEPs (Letters, 3 November), to pretend otherwise.
A major British interest currently on the EU agenda is the reform of financial services regulations, yet the Tories could not get a place on the parliament's financial crisis committee. Their new European Conservatives and Reformists Group is not even united on an issue as fundamental as the Lisbon treaty: group leader Michal Kaminski supports it.
By disowning the EU, the Tories and their allies are only able to claim a place at formal European parliament meetings where their views are ignored anyway. A delegation as large as the British Conservatives should expect far more influence in the parliament than one committee chair.
The Tories want to be seen as serious politicians, able to tackle the huge problems of climate change, global poverty and trade, yet they have withdrawn from their alliance with some of the leading European partners, to throw their lot with a motley crew of politicians of little import. This new Tory creation, the ECR group, is destined to be short-lived and to have little impact, and will mainly serve to paper over Tory divisions over Europe.
Leader of the British Labour MEPs
Scientists urge respect on advice
1257465743|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Horse genome unlocked by science
1257460898|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
It isn't godly being green | Myles Allen
1257460201|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
It is an insult to science to rule that belief in man-made climate change is a religious conviction
A British judge has decided that belief in human influence on climate has the status of religious conviction. This is being celebrated as a success by some activists. As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming. Is Jeremy Clarkson similarly entitled to protection if he declares himself a conscientious objector and wants to keep his 4x4?
It is yet another symptom of general confusion over the status of science among the public, politicians, the judiciary and, indeed, just about anyone who is not a practising scientist. I don't ask anyone to believe in human influence on climate because I do, or because thousands of other scientists do. I ask them to look at the evidence. As Einstein is said to have reacted to an article entitled 100 scientists against Einstein: "If I'm wrong, one would be enough."
The scientific case for human influence on climate is not a political opinion, made stronger simply by lots of people signing up. Nor is it a religious conviction, made stronger, in Mr Justice Burton's phrase, if it is "genuinely held". It is based on evidence and understanding that has withstood some of the most intense scrutiny in the history of science.
If I could come up with convincing evidence that greenhouse gas emissions do not cause dangerous climate change after all, evidence that similarly withstands the scrutiny of my peers, I would get, and deserve, a Nobel prize (and for physics this time, not peace). If a scientist finds something that appears to conflict with mainstream opinion, she or he publishes it like a shot – this is not the behaviour of an adherent to a "genuinely held philosophical belief".
There is, of course, a moral and ethical dimension: to what extent should we concern ourselves with what happens to the generation-after-next? But very few of those arguing against emission reductions actually claim they don't care at all what happens in the 22nd century. They argue that emission reductions will not make a substantial difference to the risk of dangerous climate change. That is a testable hypothesis, and one which looks, on the overwhelming weight of current evidence, to be wrong.
To be fair, Tim Nicholson, the activist who brought the case, seems to be aware he may have opened a Pandora's box, stressing that climate change is not a new religion because it "is based on scientific evidence". But that means he should have lost his case: one of the key arguments the judge used was that, in his opinion, the case for human influence on climate was not "a view based on the present state of information available". But that is precisely what scientific evidence provides: if countervailing information becomes available, I would revise my view, as would any genuine scientist.
There is a very dangerous trend to regard climate scientists as just one of many "stakeholders" in the climate change debate. Journalists have taken to asking me whether I take steps to reduce my personal carbon footprint, presumably as a test of whether my beliefs are "genuinely held". If anyone thinks this is relevant, they don't understand how science works. I know climate scientists who drive Priuses and climate scientists who drive 4x4s: this is not a factor I consider when reading or reviewing their papers.
Working as I do in a University traditionally dominated by the Humanities, I suspect many of my colleagues would also be suspicious of a scientist arguing she or he occupies a privileged position. Memories of Cold War arrogance die hard. Of course, unlike the pope, science is not infallible: that is precisely the point. But nor are scientists just another participant in a political, philosophical or religious discourse. Our job is to provide the factual framework within which that discourse takes place. Some of the darkest episodes of the 20th century occurred when we forgot this distinction.
The problem is not Mr Justice Burton's views on climate change. The problem is his view of science. This decision should be appealed, and the appeal should be supported by the Royal Society and universities everywhere, in the name of science in general. Myles Allen heads the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, and was an author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Read Tim Nicholson's take on the ruling at guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
No global climate change treaty likely for up to a year, negotiators admit
1257454370|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
World's key industrialised nations say they have abandoned hope of legally binding deal at Copenhagen summit
A global treaty to fight climate change will be postponed by at least six months and possibly a year or more, senior negotiators and politicians conceded today.
In a day of gloomy statements, the world's key industrialised nations said they had abandoned hope of a legally binding treaty at the Copenhagen summit next month and had begun to plan only for a meeting of world leaders.
The stark statements follow weeks of pessimism and represent a significant downgrading of the summit's goal.
In London, Ed Miliband, the UK climate change secretary, became the first British politician to acknowledge publicly that Copenhagen would produce no legal climate change treaty.
Speaking in the House of Commons, he said: "The UN negotiations are moving too slowly and not going well." He went on to describe a "history of mistrust" between developed and developing nations with negotiators "stuck in entrenched positions", an impasse that prompted African nations to stage a walkout at the negotiations this week.
In Barcelona, where last-ditch negotiations are taking place, it became clear today the best hope for Copenhagen is a "politically binding" agreement, which rich countries hope will have all the key elements of the final deal, including specific targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions cuts and money for poor countries to cope with climate change.
A British government official said: "It would be substantive. It would set timelines, and provide the figures by which rich countries would reduce emissions, as well as the money that would be made available to developing countries to adapt to climate change."
But, she said, a legally binding agreement "could take six months, up to a year, but we would want it to be [signed] as soon as possible."
Sources said a meeting in Mexico in December 2010 would be more likely to see the legal treaty sealed.
The news of the delay was met with resignation by developing countries and NGOs. "Politically binding agreements are worth very little," said Lumumba Di-Aping, chair of the G77 group of developing countries. "Tell me of any politician who delivers a politically binding agreement."
The delay was said to be caused by a combination of time running out in the increasingly rancorous UN negotiations and the inability of the US – the world's biggest cumulative emitter – to commit to specific targets and timetables by passing a domestic law.
The Obama administration made clear on Wednesday it thought a legal treaty was impossible in Copenhagen. Today it further inflamed opposition to its Senate bill when Barbara Boxer, chairman of the environment committee, defied a Republican boycott to vote through a sweeping plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20% over 2005 levels by 2020.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, said on Tuesday a delay of a year would be too long, while developing countries were dismayed tonight that they had not been formally told of the delay. "We cannot afford delaying tactics in any way. It's a matter of life and death," said Makase Nyaphisi, the Lesothan ambassador speaking on behalf of the UN's least developed group of 49 countries.
Speaking in Barcelona, Artur Runge-Metzger, the European commission's chief negotiator, said: "It is a Catch-22 situation. People are waiting for each other so it is difficult to blame anyone. [But] the US position is significant. Clearly the US has been slowing things down."
Both Miliband and the prime minister, Gordon Brown, are to attend Copenhagen, with Brown calling it the last chance to prevent "catastrophic" climate change.
Brown, President Lula of Brazil, President Sarkozy of France and other heads of state have already said they will go.
It is now more likely that President Obama will go because he will not be forced to sign a legally binding agreement which the US Senate could reject.
Miliband's comments were the first public reappraisal of the British position since officials began to shift the line following downbeat comments last week from the Copenhagen host, Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.
Government sources said it had become increasingly obvious amid slow negotiations that a legally binding treaty in December was unlikely.
But one insisted that political commitments would move to legal ones, pointing out that the Kyoto protocol followed the same course from political to legal agreement. "I don't think we are downbeat about this," said one.
They also said pledges made at Copenhagen would be as difficult to escape as if they were legally binding, because nations would have made their commitments at the very public forum of a UN meeting.
Vedanta Resources dismisses claims of environmental and human rights abuses in India and Zambia
1257446089|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Campaigners sceptical as controversial British mining company lists farming, education and nutrition programmes
Vedanta Resources, the controversial British mining company, today defended its environmental and human rights record, insisting its work has had a positive impact on the lives of 2.5 million villagers in India and Zambia.
In a Vedanta's statement for its interim results, Anil Agarwal, the company's chairman, said: "Our sustainable development efforts have positively impacted 427 villages [which] include 2.5 million people. We remain committed to working with all our stakeholders to ensure that Vedanta has a net positive effect on the communities and the environment in which we work."
He said that some of the schemes the company has implemented in the two countries include agricultural tuition for farmers, pre-school education and health and nutrition supplementation. However, his comments angered many campaigners who believe that Vedanta's actions in certain areas are having a detrimental effect on villagers and their surroundings.
Stephen Corry, director of charity Survival, which helps indigenous people, said: "The British government has recently investigated Vedanta and exposed the company's chronic habit of ignoring people's basic rights, saying a change in Vedanta's behaviour is 'essential'. It's clear that the only 'positive impact' Vedanta is interested in is feeding Mr Agarwal's burgeoning bank balance."
The company is currently facing controversy over its plans to open a bauxite mine in Orissa, a sacred part of East India. Activists believe the mine will have catastrophic effects on the region's ecosystem and threaten the future of the 8,000-strong Dongria Kondh tribe.
A UK government agency recently ruled that Vedanta "did not respect the rights" of Orissa's indigenous people, "did not consider the impact of the construction of the mine on the [tribe's] rights" and "failed to put in place an adequate and timely consultation mechanism".
However, Vedanta insisted today that it is "working closely" with the Dongria Kondh development agency "for the social-economic development of indigenous people".
Vedanta, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange and included in the FTSE 100 index, also defended its record on fraud. Its iron ore subsidiary, Sesa Goa, has been under investigation by India's serious fraud investigation office for financial and other irregularities, but Vedanta's chief executive, M.S. Mehta, said that the probe related to issues in 2003, four years before Vedanta bought its 51% stake in Sesa.
"It is our understanding it is a very old matter, and not of great significance," he said.
Meanwhile, the companyposted a 41% drop in EBITDA earnings and a 25% fall in revenue for the six months to 30 September. But Agarwal remained upbeat, saying that there are "early signs of economic recovery globally".
Shares in Vedanta closed 48p down, at 2,242p.
Clues sought to bear mystery
1257445461|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Tiny tech sparks cell signal find
1257444616|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
One Minute to Save the World film competition
1257436799|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk)
Vote for the best entry in the One Minute to Save the World green video competition
From Kenya to Turkmenistan and the US to the UK, hundreds of people from 30 countries have submitted their eco-themed videos in an international film competition. Now it's time for you to vote for the best entry to the One Minute to Save the World contest. Voting closes at 5pm tomorrow, so this is your chance to decide who'll make the shortlist for the £1,000 first prize – the list will be announced next week.
I've picked out six of the entries below. Make sure you cast your vote on the One Minute site, and let us know what you think in the comments below. Are they good enough to answer Leo Hickman's question: why do environmental videos rarely go truly viral?
Some green videos do go viral, as demonstrated by the A Million Views on Copenhagen campaign to rack up 1m views about climate-related shorts on YouTube. Last week it announced it was a fifth of the way there with 200,000 views, thanks to contributions from cult YouTubers such as Eddsworld.
Here, in no particular order, are the six from One Minute to Save the World site:
When I am 18
Who do you blame?
My paper boat
Our time
Cats against climate change
Global warning
F1 designer unveils electric car
1257433444|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Flexetarian
1257418420|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Major quakes could be aftershocks
1257363957|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Rocket and roll
1257350999|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Light down a wire for solar power
1257349681|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
GPS used to preserve ants' nests
1257339788|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Rare whale gathering sighted
1257337481|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Breathing In
1257333074|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Messenger spies iron on Mercury
1257332269|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
US praises China space progress
1257326668|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Meet T. rex's most ancient relative
1257300479|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Obama urges effort on climate
1257297055|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Minister 'appalled' by Nutt exit
1257266960|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Species' extinction threat grows
1257207464|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Saving the trillionth tonne of coal
1257184455|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Polar bear plus grizzly equals?
1256896586|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Casting a net far into the future
1256554951|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition)
Bird Cam Captures Albatross, Killer Whale Rendezvous
1254873720|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Infrared Video: 500,000 Bats Emerge From Cave
1254771780|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Teen's DIY Energy Hacking Gives African Village New Hope
1254504720|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Earth's Hum Might Help Map Mars
1254441600|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Throwaway GPS Data Reveals Snow Depth
1254417060|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Weird, Rare Clouds and the Physics Behind Them
1254268800|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Four-Winged Fossil Bridges Bird-Dinosaur Gap
1253905800|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
9 Environmental Boundaries We Don't Want to Cross
1253731140|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
Dust Storm Slams Sydney: "It Was Like Waking Up on Mars"
1253714760|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
The Hunt for Extraterrestrial Life Gets Weird
1253650320|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover (Wired Planet Earth)
