“Green is the first socio-political movement in which every single leader and spokesperson is filthy rich.”

The Independent: Julie Burchill: So the Prince of Green Hypocrites is going on tour. Thank God I’ll be abroad

Climate change is serious business – in more ways than one. Martin Cohen describes how capitalist ‘bootleggers’ have co-opted the environmental ‘Baptists’ to fulfil their raison d’etre – making money. Thanks to the ‘greenwash’, the solutions could be worse than the problems.

Read the entire article.

Will massive rises in energy prices affect Mr Huhne’s personal  financial situation? It appears that the answer is probably not:

The Independent carried a story on 27 February 2006 alleging that his shareholdings include, or have included, mining companies, oil companies, and tax shelters.

Huhne owns seven houses—five that he purchased just as investments and that he makes money on as rental properties and two in which he lives. (One in Eastleigh, his constituency, and a town house in Clapham, south London): “I have investments in five homes for rent, which is basically my pension fund from my time in the City; and we have two homes we actually use, which is one in Eastleigh and one in London.”

Huhne has erected a wind turbine rising 8 feet above the roof of his constituency home in Eastleigh where he spends his weekends.

His wealth is estimated at £3.5 million.

Huhne is not alone though – 23 out of 29 members of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition cabinet are worth more than £1 million – the £60 million cabinet. Nice to know that they will share the electorate’s financial pain, not!

Read much more at Wikipedia: Chris Huhne

Mail Online: Has any minister in history seemed more hopelessly unfit to do his job?

…..How The Times’s front-page headline might rather more relevantly have been re-worded was “Governments, foundations, multi-national corporations including the owners of this newspaper and Big Oil give hundreds of billions of pounds to promote worldwide climate bonanza.” But doubtless The Times’s editors would have ruled that this was too long for their front page.

Read the entire article at EU Referendum: Climategate, Amazongate, Bob Ward and the Murdoch empire – Guest post by Christopher Booker

Surprising documents …reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.

Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.

Pajamas Media: More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

Sir Reginald Sheffield, 63, who is worth at least £20million, splits the profits with the project’s developers.
 
Around half of the income comes from a government scheme to make power companies use more renewable energy, much of it bought from private generators. It is subsidised by every household, via their electricity bills.

Sir Reginald’s eight 400ft turbines were switched on last August at Bagmoor, part of the 3,000-acre Normanby Hall estate near Scunthorpe that has been in his family since the 16th century.

He plans a second development at nearby Flixborough Grange, despite fierce opposition from locals.

The renewable energy scheme is adding an estimated £13.59 a year to the average household power bill.

CRN comment: I bet that the 8 wind turbines aren’t generating anything like £3.5 million worth of electricity. So, we’re all paying an average of around £14 per year to support inefficient wind power.

Read more in the Daily Mail: How SamCam’s super-rich father is coining £3.5m from taxpayer… to fund wind turbines

The six-day summit will see scores of Eurocrats descending on the Canary Isles, leaving taxpayers back home to pick up the £550,000 bill.

But no treaties will be signed and no legislation will come into force as the summit has no power to enshrine decisions in law.

Instead, the 250 delegates will enjoy visits to the island’s finest beaches and be wined and dined at gala dinners while living it up in luxury hotels.

Critics last night branded it “hypocritical” to fly delegations ­thousands of miles – creating some 200 tons in carbon emissions – to discuss saving the planet.

Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers’ ­Alliance, said: “It is sickening that these MEPs are jetting off to a sunny island while their constituents are stuck with strikes, pay cuts and tax rises. To fly to a conference where they plan to lecture us about climate change is the height of hypocrisy.

“It’s funny how these conferences are always held somewhere with sandy, sunny beaches.”

Express.co.uk: CLIMATE MEPS LIVE IT UP IN TENERIFE

The WWF and other green campaign groups talking up the destruction of the Amazon rainforests are among those who stand to make billions of dollars from the scare. This “green gold-rush” involves taking control of huge tracts of rainforest supposedly to stop them being chopped down, and selling carbon credits gained from carbon dioxide emissions they claim will be “saved”.

Backed by a $30 million grant from the World Bank, the WWF has already partnered in a pilot scheme to manage 20 million acres in Brazil. If their plans get the go-ahead in Mexico at the end of the year, the forests will be worth over $60 billion in “carbon credits”, paid for by consumers in “rich” countries through their electricity bills and in increased prices for goods and services.

The prospect of a billion-dollar windfall explains the sharp reaction to the “Amazongate” scandal, in which the IPCC falsely claimed that up to 40 percent of the rainforest could be at risk from even a slight drop in rainfall.

Here, the IPCC was caught out again making unsubstantiated claims based on a WWF report. But unlike the “Glaciergate” affair where its claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was conceded to be an “error”, the IPCC stood firm on its Amazon claim, stating that the assertion was “correct”. What makes the difference is that there is no serious money locked into melting glaciers. Amazonian trees, however, are potentially worth billions.

In standing its ground, the IPCC was strongly supported by the WWF, and by Daniel Nepstad, a senior scientist from the US Woods Hole Research Centre. Relying on an assiduously fostered reputation as a leading expert on the effects of climate change in the Amazon rainforests, Nepstad – who works closely with the WWF – posted on the Centre’s website a personal statement endorsing “the correctness of the IPCC’s statement”. Bizarrely, his own research failed in any way to substantiate the claim.

Read more:

Christopher Booker: WWF hopes to find $60 billion growing on trees

and

Richard North: Amazongate II – Seeing REDD

Now we have the press release below from ‘Transport & Environment’ involving  4 of the 10 Green groups:

Green groups sue Commission over withheld biofuels docs

On Monday 8 March 2010, a coalition of environmental groups filed a legal action against the European Commission over its refusal to release documents.

The documents contain previously undisclosed information on the negative climate impacts of widespread biofuels use in the EU. The lawsuit, brought by ClientEarth, Transport & Environment, the European Environmental Bureau, and BirdLife International, alleges several violations of European laws designed to promote transparency, democracy, and legitimacy in EU policy-making.

“The public’s right to this information is a fundamental principle of European law. That the Commission should choose to deny our rights on such a critical issue as the science underpinning our climate policies is astounding,” said Tim Grabiel, Staff Attorney at ClientEarth, the public-interest legal organisation representing the coalition. “It is regrettable that the Commission’s consistent obstructionism compels us to go to court.”

The efforts to gain access to this information began on 15 October 2009 – more than 144 days ago. Following intense internal deliberations and multiple extensions, the Commission refused to turn over the documents by the statutory deadline, 9 February 2010. Instead, it informed the coalition of their right to sue. In response, the coalition has taken the rare step of taking the issue to the General Court of the European Union.

“The papers released so far give the strong impression that the Commission is preparing to present the studies’ findings in a way that supports previously taken decisions, rather than assessing the real implications of these decisions and correcting them,” said Pieter de Pous, Senior Policy Officer at the EEB.

At issue is the future regulation of biofuels in the European Union. Member States are required to use renewable sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020, which will be met in large part through the increased use of biofuels. A well-known consequence of biofuels production, however, is the conversion of forests and other natural areas into cropland to replace those croplands lost to biofuels production – a phenomenon called indirect land-use change (ILUC) that releases significant greenhouse-gas emissions. The requested documents sought in the ClientEarth v. Commission case reveal the science on those impacts.

Nuša Urbančič, Transport & Environment, says: “Current EU biofuels policy guarantees that Europe will use lots of biofuels, but it doesn’t guarantee reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; in fact it seems likely it will make things worse. The first step to fixing this broken policy must be full transparency about what the true impacts are. That’s why this legal action is so important.”

The Commission is currently withholding around 140 documents, according to its own figures.

The coalition’s application will be reviewed by the Registrar of the General Court of the European Union, and later served upon the Commission, after which it will have two months to respond. A hearing date has yet to be set.

“We continue to hope that the Commission will finally opt for full transparency,” said Ariel Brunner, Head of EU Policy at BirdLife International. “Sound climate policies require an open, inclusive and science-driven debate.”

James Thornton, lawyer and CEO of ClientEarth, says: “The Commission might not be seeking to hide the truth, but the result of its stance is that crucial information is being withheld until it’s no longer relevant. Its own access laws and work to mitigate climate change are being compromised by its inaction. The Commission’s delaying tactics are totally against the spirit of the law.”

Footnotes

Notes to editors:

The full text of the legal filing can be downloaded here.
The General Court of the European Union was formerly known at the Court of First Instance.
Applicants that have been refused access to documents have standing to bring an action under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, also known as the Public Access Regulation, and Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In fact, when refusing a request, the Commission informs the applicant of their right to initiate court proceedings.
There is precedent for the General Court to grant activists standing. For example, a recent case involves the WWF who brought an action against the Council to get certain documents. The court rejected its pleas in law and dismissed the case, but that was on the merits of the claims and not on standing. See Case T-264/04, WWF European Policy Programme v. Council of the European Union (2007), paragraph 36.
However, ClientEarth v. Commission challenges not only the refusal to release the documents, but seeks to address the underlying pattern of the Commission in engaging in what the European Ombudsman has called “maladministration” – that is, delaying the disclosure of documents needlessly without adequate justification until those documents are no longer relevant or the decision has been made. It does this by asking the court to order the release of all requested documents without redaction or delay for failure to make valid claims during the administrative process, without consideration of any reasons offered by the Commission afterward. That is what the law requires, and will ensure good faith participation in the administrative process going forward.
The spirit of the law is that the information should be forthcoming. That is what the process in the regulation is designed to do. Our climate strategies are matters of public policy, and the public should be invited into the policy-making process, not excluded from it by having critical information indefinitely hidden from scrutiny.
For further information:

Dudley Curtis
Communications Manager
+32 (0)2 289 1042
dudley.curtis@transportenvironment.org

10 March 2010

Green 10 Members

Birdlife International

Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) Bankwatch Network

Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E)

European Environment Bureau (EEB)

Transport and Environment (T&E)

Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)

Greenpeace

International Friends of Nature (IFN)

WWF European Policy Office (WWF-EPO)

Read more on Daniel Hannan’s Telegraph.co.uk blog: ‘Green pressure groups get €66 million from the EU’

Read the IPN report here.