Environment | guardian

Saved permits can be used to meet future targets to cut emissions without reducing pollution

Companies across Europe are hoarding permits to produce greenhouse gas emissions worth hundreds of millions of pounds, the Guardian can reveal.

The surplus credits have been amassed from over-allocation of permits to pollute from the European emissions trading scheme, and by buying cheap credits from carbon-cutting projects in developing countries and holding on to their more expensive official EU allowances.

The saved permits can be used to meet future targets to cut the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming and climate change without actually reducing pollution, or sold for a profit in the future.

Campaigners for tougher emissions reductions said the saved-up allowances discredited the argument of some industries that much deeper cuts in future would be "fatal" because they could no longer afford to compete against rivals outside the EU.

However, companies involved said the banked credits would help them pay to develop new emission-cutting technology, and to meet emissions targets until that became widely available.

Industry also warned it faced "death by a thousand cuts" as a result of the next phase of the scheme, from 2013 and 2020, and other costly environmental legislation planned by government. Business leaders accused the government of being prepared to sacrifice industry to enable other sectors such as aviation to keep polluting and meet the UK's carbon budgets.

One steelmaker told the Guardian: "Officials see us as acceptable collateral in the fight against climate change. If we don't make anything in this country any more, it means people could still fly to Tenerife once a year and the UK will keep within the carbon budget."

He said meeting targets would require vast amounts of steel to build windfarms, nuclear reactors and electric cars. This would have to be imported from more-polluting steelmakers outside Europe if the industry disappeared in the UK.

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the centrepiece of the EU's pledge to cut greenhouse gases, has already been criticised for giving many companies allowances to emit more emissions than they need, leaving little incentive to reduce pollution, and for lax regulation.

The latest concern about "banking" credits involves companies also buying cheap allowances from "offset" schemes which reduce emissions in other countries, often China and India, and using these to cover their emissions while keeping their official allowances – which are worth more because projects in other countries could in future be banned.

Analysis for the Guardian by campaign group Sandbag of the figures for 2008, the most recent available, looked at the extra allowances accrued by four big sectors: iron and steel, coke ovens, metal ore processing, and cement, which together have 800 installations covered by the trading scheme, and include big names like ArcelorMittal, Thyssenkrupp, Corus, Holcim and Cemex.

Sandbag calculated the four sectors received permits to emit 66m tonnes more carbon dioxide than they needed in 2008, partly because predicted growth did not happen and partly because of the recession towards the end of the year. In addition they bought cheap offsets for a further 18m tonnes plus, which would then free up more EU allowances. In total the surplus allowances would have been worth nearly €1.2bn (£1.1bn) in 2008, or just over €1.1bn at today's closing price of €12.99. Based on the forecast average price of €30 a tonne for the third phase of the ETS from 2013-2016 by analysts Point Carbon they would be worth more than double that in future.

If the companies stockpiled over-allocated surpluses for the whole of this phase of the ETS, from 2008-2012 they could be worth as much as €3.2bn at today's prices, said Sandbag. Any more credits released by buying offsets would be on top of that.

"If they [companies] want cashflow, which in the current climate they may, then they'll cash in the allowances," said Bryony Worthington, Sandbag's founder and director. "But if they are thinking long-term then they'll be thinking 'I should probably hold on to them and insulate myself for the future'."

ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest steel producer, has pledged to use profits to invest in future energy savings to reduce pollution, but there were no guarantees they or any other company would have to do this, said Worthington. "How do we police it, they could be using it for dividends or anything," she added.

Ian Rodgers, director of UK Steel, said: "The climate change agenda won't affect the amount of steel consumed, but it will determine where it's produced."

According to industry estimates, the third phase could cost heavy industry – including steelmakers such as Corus, the chemicals industry and the ceramics industry – €1bn a year.

Sandbag will tomorrow publish in-depth analysis for 2008, including the biggest buyers of offsets from developing countries, and a map linking every offset scheme with their European customers.

• Emissions trading
• Carbon emissions
• European Union
• Pollution
• Manufacturing sector
• Climate change

Juliette JowitTim Webb
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Sainsbury's and Tesco among stores caught out by wholesaler who passed off battery produce as organic

For those who made the conscious decision to spend more on free range or organic eggs, it was worth paying a premium to know the hens that laid them had been kept in ethical conditions.

But those people who ended up paying over the odds for Keith Owen's eggs may feel a little less warm inside after it emerged the 44-year-old egg wholesaler had scammed all the major supermarkets and numerous small shops by passing off about 100m battery farmed eggs as free range or organic.

Owen, a married father-of-two from Bromsgrove in Worcestershire, was jailed for three years today and forced to surrender the £3m profit he had made by "dishonestly and systematically" mis-describing eggs over a two-year period. The fraud abused "well-intentioned public trust" by scamming innocent customers who had paid extra to ensure better animal welfare, Worcester crown court heard.

Defra, which brought the prosecution, said it was the biggest case of its kind it had ever investigated.

Owen ran Heart of England Eggs Unlimited, an egg-packing business that supplied bigger packing companies, which, in turn, provided the vast majority of eggs to the well-known supermarkets, including Sainsbury's, Morrisons and Tesco, as well as smaller retailers.

Last week he pleaded guilty to three charges of fraudulent accounting which involved him altering records to disguise the fact he was buying eggs laid by caged hens and selling them for a vast profit after "mis-describing" them in paperwork.

His barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, suggested his client was not alone in creating what he described as "mischief" in the egg industry.

"It's not the case that all those to whom Mr Owen supplied eggs were concerned to ensure the provenance of the eggs was as described," said Kelsey-Fry, adding it would be "inappropriate" to elaborate.

Passing sentence, the judge said Owen had made very substantial profits at the expense of "real-life victims" who believed they were buying premium eggs.

Describing Owen as the firm's guiding mind, the judge told the managing director: "Imprisonment there must be, because the offences are plainly so serious that only a sentence of imprisonment will suffice. This was all a carefully planned and executed fraud by false accounting. By greed, you have corrupted and destroyed the once-legitimate business which you have known all your life."

At the time of the fraud, between 2004 and 2006, farmers could expect a price of about 90p for a dozen organic eggs, 70p for free range and 35p for cage eggs. As a "middle man" wholesaler, Owen would normally make a few pence profit per dozen. But by passing off cage eggs as free range, he could make an extra 35p for every 12 eggs he sold. In a market where demand outstripped supply, he seized the opportunity to make a lot of money.

Richard Jones, a Defra official who investigated the case, said today that Owen was such a significant player in the free range egg market that after he closed down his business two years ago, a number of supermarkets, including Somerfield, had to start sourcing free range eggs from abroad.

The court heard that Owen did not only buy in cheap battery hen eggs in order to dupe customers further down the line, he also bought in huge quantities of so-called "industrial eggs". These do not meet the quality requirements for sale to the public; instead they can be used only in processed foods once liquefied.

Murmurings began circulating in the egg industry in 2004 that there were vastly more British free range and organic eggs being sold in shops than could ever possibly be laid in UK farms.

At the same time, investigators from the Egg Marketing Inspectorate (EMI) noticed during routine checks that eggs coming from Heart of England were not at all they were purported to be. Because all eggs look the same to the naked eye, the law requires that each egg is stamped with a unique number indicating where, and in what conditions, it was laid. Paperwork indicating origin and type must accompany the eggs all along the supply chain.

But when inspectors checked a selection of Owen's allegedly free range eggs using a strong ultraviolet light, the shells bore wire marks – a tell-tale sign that they had been laid not on a bed of straw, or even artificial turf, as farming regulations stipulate, but in a metal cage.

There were also complaints from lorry drivers who arrived at Owen's farms to drop off consignments of caged eggs and then pick up free range or organic eggs. A number of drivers reported to their trade union that they were made to wait hours to pick up their deliveries and suspected the eggs they delivered were being relabelled and sold back to them that day.

All of Owen's major contracts were to supply British eggs, bearing the British Lion hallmark. But investigators from Defra discovered that he was regularly buying eggs from the continent and passing them off as homegrown.

He used another of his companies, Owens Eggs, to disguise the accounting fraud. Owens Eggs was a legitimate business selling organic eggs laid in a barn on the same site as the Heart of England business. He laundered money by selling organic eggs from Owens Eggs to Heart of England at a hugely inflated price – £10-£40 a dozen at a time when others were selling a dozen for no more than £1.

Investigators found Owen had not only falsified records with real suppliers but also invented firms that had supposedly provided him with premium eggs. He was banned from being a company director for seven years.

A Sainsbury's spokesman said: "We have the highest standards of quality for all our products, and the eggs we sell are either Woodland eggs or Lion Mark eggs from non-caged flocks. So we were naturally very angry and concerned to learn that we and other retailers were the victims of this fraud.

"We purchased the eggs from a long-term supplier in good faith and it is important to note that at no point did we have any contact with Mr Owen or Heart of England Unlimited."

The British Free Range Egg Producers Association said: "As a result of this case, the British Egg Industry Council with the 'Lion', have introduced a raft of measures, one of which is the stamping of all eggs since January 2010. Consumers can therefore now be reassured that eggs cannot be tampered with as in this case."

• Crime
• Consumer affairs
• Supermarkets
• Food & drink industry
• Organics
• Food

Helen Pidd
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Governments indicate support for complete international ban to allow species to recover from years of over-fishing

Japanese tuna brokers protested today after the EU decided to support a worldwide trade ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna.

EU governments indicated they would back a complete international ban to allow the bluefin to recover from years of over-fishing.

The protest came ahead of a meeting this weekend of Cites – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species – in Doha, which will see 175 member states vote on whether to add bluefin tuna to a list of species threatened with extinction, banning its trade.

Raw tuna is a key ingredient in sushi and sashimi in Japan, the world's main purchaser of bluefin.

Although the ban would not prevent the fish from being caught, it would end the trade between European fishing fleets and Japan, which buys around 80% of bluefin.

"This is like telling the US to stop eating beef," Kimio Amano, a 36-year-old broker at the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo, said.

He joined about 100 other dealers to chant slogans calling for better use of the ocean's resources.

The brokers argue that an Atlantic ban would be unnecessary if existing tuna stocks were better managed. The Japanese tuna industry has also said implementation of the ban could lead to broader restrictions.

"Our biggest hope is that this doesn't spread to the Pacific," Tadao Ban, the head of the Tokyo co-operative for large fish dealers, said.

"For this reason, we are promoting strict resource management. We are even supporting putting a tag on each and every tuna caught."

Global stocks of bluefin tuna – which can reach 14ft (4.3 metres) in length and weigh more than 1,000lb (450kg) (450kg) – have been decimated over the last decade, particularly in the Atlantic.

It is estimated that around 1m bluefin were caught last year. The total population is thought to be about 3.75m.

The WWF says Atlantic stocks of bluefin tuna have dropped by 80% since 1978.

• Japan
• European Union
• Fishing

Adam Gabbatt
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

• Firm buys 10 exploration blocks from Devon Energy
• Oil fields give BP up to an extra 40,000 barrels a day

BP has bought into the Brazilian oil rush with a $7bn (£4.65bn) deal that will boost the group's potential reserves by about 2bn barrels of oil.

The deal, with Devon Energy of the US, will also create a joint venture to develop BP's controversial oil sands in Canada.

A number of recent huge finds in water up to two miles deep and below a thick layer of salt on the seabed off the coast of Brazil has made the country the focus for international oil companies looking for new sources of oil and gas.

By 2020, Brazil hopes to produce almost 6m barrels of oil a day – triple the country's current output.

BP is one of the few major oil companies not to have any assets in Brazil. The deal means Brazil is likely to provide a major source of future production for BP, depending on how successful its exploration there is. BP has total global potential reserves of 64bn barrels of oil and gas.

In total, BP will pay $7bn cash for Devon Energy's interests in 10 exploration blocks in Brazil, as well as deep-water exploration acreage and prospects in the US Gulf of Mexico, and an interest in the Caspian Sea off Azerbaijan. The Brazilian assets are the most valuable part of the deal, which will immediately add 20,000–40,000 barrels a day to BP's production.

Andy Inglis, BP's chief executive of exploration and production, said: "Through our entry into Brazil, BP will add a major position in another attractive deep-water basin. Together with the additional new access in the Gulf of Mexico, it further underlines our global position as the leading deep-water international oil company."

BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, added that the deal was in keeping with the company's avowed aim of focusing on "high margin" oil in relatively low cost locations. BP assumes an oil price of $60 a barrel when investing in projects, but a spokesman declined to give estimates of production costs from its new fields.

BP is also selling a 50% stake to Devon Energy in its Kirby oil sands interests, which are not yet in production, in Alberta, Canada, for $500m. Devon Energy already has a neighbouring oil sands block in operation and BP wants to tap its expertise to bring Kirby onstream.

The oil rush in Brazil began in earnest in 2007 when the Brazilian state-owned firm Petrobras discovered the Tupi field which may have as much as 8bn barrels of oil. This would make it the largest find in the Americas for over 30 years. The British firm BG has a stake in the Tupi field, as well as Guará field, which holds as much as 2bn barrels of crude.

The oil industry is expected to invest between $150bn and $200bn in exploration and production over the next decade to tap Brazil's new-found reserves.

Analysts warned that challenges remained to start production. The new oil finds are known as "pre-salt" because they lie as much as four miles below the seabed beneath a massive layer of compacted salt. It is harder to drill through salt rather than rock because the salt is more unstable and can shift. The pre-salt cluster lies in an 500 mile strip lying about 170 miles off the coast of Brazil in the Altantic Ocean. Estimates of these pre-salt reserves range from 60bn to more than 150bn barrels.

Juliette Kerr, analyst from IHS Global Insight, said: "There has been deep-water exploration for quite some time, but as technology has developed in recent years, companies have been able to go deeper and deeper and get more of an idea of the potential reserves.

"But technical challenges remain for the pre-salt fields: temperatures tend to be higher, which can damage drill bits, carbon dioxide levels are higher too, while they are further away from the coast than Brazil's other offshore fields."

• Oil
• Oil and gas companies
• Oil
• Brazil

Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Our father, John Davoll, who has died aged 85, followed a career as a research chemist with a pioneering role in the conservation movement.

Born in Chadderton, Lancashire, to parents who worked in the cotton industry, he developed an early interest in chemistry through reading his father's textbooks. He pursued the subject at school and won a scholarship to Clare College, Cambridge.

After completing his degree, he joined Alex Todd's organic chemistry research team in Cambridge. During this time he met Helen Frenkel, and they married in 1947. John gained his PhD and then took a position at the Sloan‑Kettering Institute for cancer research in New York. Returning to England in 1951, John and Helen settled in Shepperton, Surrey. John worked at the Parke-Davis pharmaceutical company, eventually becoming deputy director of research. His colleagues recall his sense of humour and the relaxed atmosphere in the department.

John had always read widely on the nature of society and possible futures for humanity. His original view of science as a liberating force changed as he came to appreciate the less benevolent side of technology, and he grew increasingly concerned about limits to resources, the pressure of population and the impact of unchecked economic growth on the planet. In 1966 he became a founder member of the Conservation Society, one of the first British environmental societies, and in 1970 he left chemistry to work full-time as the society's director, continuing until 1987.

He was a co‑author of A Blueprint for Survival, the special issue of the Ecologist magazine published in 1972, and in the same year contributed a prescient survey, Resources, to the UN conference on the human environment at Stockholm. Many of his ideas have now become common currency, though effective action still lags behind.

In 1991 John and Helen retired to Bookham in Surrey. He was a kind and affectionate husband and father, and a lifetime Guardian reader. Helen survives him, along with our brother, Richard and ourselves.

• Conservation
• Chemistry

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

US belief in climate science lowest since polling began 13 years ago, with 31% saying the threat is 'definitely' a reality

Public belief in climate science has seen a precipitous slide in the US, according to new polling that suggests fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming.

Nearly half of Americans – 48% – now believe the threat of global warming has been exaggerated, the highest level since polling began 13 years ago, the poll published today by Gallup said.

It directly linked the decline in concern to the controversies about media coverage of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia climate research unit and a mistake about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 in the UN's authoritative report on global warming.

"These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming," Gallup said.

Half of Americans now believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Some 46% believe scientists are unsure about global warming, or that they believe it is not occurring. A UK poll last month showed adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44% to 31% over the past year.

"The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans' attitudes about global warming," Gallup said. "It may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect."

The poll feeds into fears among some environmentalists that the furore over the hacked emails has given new fuel to opponents of action on climate change, and stopped short the momentum in Congress for passage of a clean energy law.

A troika of Senators trying to draft a compromise climate bill that could get broad support said this week they may not be able to produce a draft until after the Easter recess, further reducing the chances of enacting legislation in 2010.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration faces lawsuits from Virginia, Texas, Alabama and a dozen business lobbies challenging its authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency.

Tim Wirth, a former Colorado senator who led the campaign against acid rain, told a conference call the science squabbles resembled a re-run of efforts to discredit that earlier effort for an environmental clean-up.

He said the scientists who worked on the IPCC report were woefully outmanoeuvred in PR by business groups which have the funds to employ legions of lobbyists and communications experts. "It's not a fair fight," he said. "The IPCC is just a tiny secretariat next to this giant denier machine."

A majority of Americans continues to believe that climate change is real, but they are less convinced of its urgency. Only 32% believe they will be directly affected by the consequences of a warming atmosphere, despite a major report by the Obama administration last year that climate change could bring flooding, heat waves, drought and loss of wildlife to the US.

• Climate change
• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Hacked climate science emails
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• United States

Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Trust is selling jam jars of fresh, 'stress-relieving' country air to city folk – is it a bit of fun or patronising PR guff?

I love the National Trust . I'm a member and live not much more than a scone's throw away from one of its finest houses in Cornwall. In recent years, it has made some great strides to shed its rather staid, middle class reputation – not least through its releasing of land for community allotments. But I think it might have gone too far with its latest wheeze to bring in the punters.

It claims to have come up with the "ultimate solution for the office-bound" – bottled fresh air.

The fresh air has been captured from rural and coastal locations across the country – including the lake-side scent of Townend on the shores of Lake Windermere in Cumbria, the grass filled blend at Stourhead, Wiltshire and the woodland aroma of Box Hill, Surrey.

Andrew McLaughlin, the head of communications at the National Trust, comments:

"With most of us living in an urban environment and having little time to escape to the great outdoors, we thought it was about time the National Trust shared just a fraction of our copious amounts of fresh air with the nation."

The National Trust fresh air has been collected in recycled glass jars and will give office workers a fragrance for the natural outdoors – thought to relieve stress for up to ten minutes with each 454 gram jar containing 0.42 grams of fresh air.

The fresh air giveaway is promoting our free weekend where we're giving everyone in the country a bonus by opening our doors for free on the weekend of 20 – 21 March 2010. Hundreds of special places from castles, windmills and gardens will be opening for free and countryside and coastal car parks cared for by the Trust will also be free of charge over the weekend …

The National Trust fresh air has been captured in environmentally friendly British-made recycled glass jars which can be re-used for jams, preserves or capturing your own locally-sourced fresh air.

Let's park any concerns we might have about the spuriousness of the survey and the science that underpins the claim that 0.42 grams of fresh air provides 10 stress-free minutes to the inhalee. I'm more than happy to leave that analysis to the likes of Ben Goldacre and his Bad Science column. What troubles me is the assumption that stressed "city workers" will not feel somewhat patronised by the idea that all they really need is a jam jar packed full of fresh air harvested from the countryside. Yes, it is just a harmless bit of PR guff, but I don't think the National Trust should be further emphasising the already chasm-like divide between urban dwellers and country folk.

But perhaps the city folk can now dream up what gift they would like to bottle up and send back in return? What has the city got that the countryside hasn't? Decent coffee? Public transport? Arthouse cinema? Or perhaps something less charitable? I'll step aside and let you make your own honourable suggestions.

• Pollution
• Health
• Ethical and green living

Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

• Supermarket customers duped in two-year, £3m scam
• Lawyer claims client is far from industry's only bad egg

A Midlands businessman was jailed for three years today after admitting making a fortune by fraudulently passing off battery farm eggs as free range or organic.

Around 100m mislabelled eggs sold by Keith Owen ended up on the shelves of supermarkets including Sainsbury's and Tesco. That the fraud was able to carry on for two years while he made a £3m profit raises questions for the food industry about the provenance of goods.

Owen, 44, from Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire, ran Heart of England Eggs Unlimited, which supplied eggs to major packing companies that in turn supplied them to supermarkets and smaller retailers.

He pleaded guilty at Worcester crown court to three charges of fraudulent accounting, relating to altering his records to disguise the fact he was buying in eggs laid by caged hens and selling them on for a profit after relabelling or "misdescribing" them in paperwork.

Prosecutors said Owen had "dishonestly and systematically passed off millions of battery farm eggs as free range/organic eggs".

Amanda Pinto QC said: "The victims of Keith Owen's false accounting were not only the direct customers of Heart of England, but also the public, as well as the legitimate egg producers.

"The ultimate customer, a member of the public buying these eggs, would have received inferior eggs – sometimes even eggs not fit for sale to the public – or eggs produced by hens kept without the stringent welfare schemes from which they were said to benefit."

Owen's barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, suggested his client was far from the only one creating what he described as "mischief" in the egg industry.

"It's not the case that all those who Mr Owen supplied eggs were concerned to ensure that the provenance of the eggs was as described," he said, adding it would be "inappropriate" to elaborate.

At the time of Owen's fraud, between 2004 and 2006, farmers could expect to receive a price of around 90p per dozen for organic eggs, 70p for free range and 35p for cage eggs. As a "middleman" wholesaler, Owen would normally make a few pence profit per dozen, but by passing off cage eggs as free range he could make an extra 35p profit for every 12 eggs he sold.

The court heard that Owen not only bought in cheap battery hen eggs, he also bought in huge quantities of so-called "industrial eggs". These do not meet the quality requirements for sale to the public, and instead are meant to be used only in processed foods.

The fraud came to light in 2004 when allegations began circulating in the egg industry that there were vastly more British free range and organic eggs being sold in shops than could ever possibly be laid in UK farms. At the same time, investigators from the Egg Marketing Inspectorate noticed during routine checks that eggs coming from Heart of England were not at all what they purported to be.

Because all eggs look the same to the naked eye, the law requires that each egg is stamped with a unique number indicating where the egg was laid and in what conditions. Paperwork must accompany eggs transported through the supply chain to indicate their origin and type.

When inspectors checked a selection of Owen's allegedly free range eggs using ultraviolet light, the shells bore telltale wire marks – a sure sign that they had been laid not on a bed of straw or even Astroturf, as farming regulations stipulate, but in a metal cage.

There were also complaints from lorry drivers who arrived at Owen's farms to drop off consignments of caged eggs and then to pick up free range or organic eggs. A number of drivers reported to their trade union that they were made to wait hours to pick up their deliveries and suspected that the same eggs they had delivered were being relabelled and then sold back to them the same day.

All of Owen's major contracts were to supply British eggs bearing the British Lion hallmark. But investigators from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered that he was regularly buying eggs from the continent and passing them off as home-grown.

He used another of his companies, Owens Eggs, to disguise the accounting fraud. Owens Eggs was a legitimate business selling organic eggs laid in a barn, on the same site as the Heart of England egg-packing business. Owen tried to mask the fraud by selling organic eggs from Owens Eggs to Heart of England at an extremely inflated price – £10-£40 per dozen at a time when other producers were selling a dozen for no more than £1.

Owen agreed under a confiscation order to surrender £3m of the profit he made from selling the misdescribed eggs, and will not be allowed to be a company director for seven years.

• Crime
• Food & drink industry
• Supermarkets
• Consumer affairs
• Food
• Organics

Helen Pidd
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Find out which species have become extinct in England by region

Paddy Allen

His email describes an experience he had yesterday evening:

At Victoria Station tonight at 8.00pm London Underground closed down one of the up escalators from Victoria Line to the main concourse. They put up a sign saying it was "switched off to save energy". It goes on to say that this would happen during quieter times of the day as a way of saving energy. But this happened at 8.00pm on a weekday night when trains were still pretty full, which meant there was a queue of people trying to get up one escalator, forcing others to walk up a non-moving escalator. See Picture.

I was sceptical that any saving made would be greater than the cost of the inconvenience to Tube users (especially as there are lots of travellers with suitcases going to Gatwick airport) plus the unintended side affect of some travellers deciding to use cars or other more polluting forms of transport than Tube travel.

Interesting. The reader asks?

How much money is saved per hour turning off the escalators? My original guess that it would need to be thousands of pounds per hour, to outweigh the potential dis-benefits of the above.

Helpfully the TFL website tells us how much per year an escalator costs to run. There is a report from 2009 which states: "The amount of electricity used by an escalator varies depending on how long it is and how far it rises but as a guide will cost in the region of between £7,000 and £12,000 each year."

This is from page 33 of the London Underground Carbon Footprint report 2008, published in 2009. My reader continues:

I was surprised by these low figures. If we assume that the escalator at Victoria station is one of the more expensive ones, the hourly cost is less than £2.00 per hour: £12,000 divided by 365 days divided by 18 hours per day.

£1.83, to be exact. Well, that's what my calculator says.

In July 2009 Boris Johnson said about the £695million plan to improve the station: "This key upgrade will transform the experience for those using the station - making life easier and more convenient." But TfL's own figures suggest it doesn't make economic or environmental sense to turn off escalators at 8.00pm in busy stations like Victoria.

I should disclose two things about this reader: one, I know him to be a very competent person; two, he is a Labour Party member. That done, I'll be asking TfL if they think he has a point.

• London
• London politics
• Transport policy

Dave Hill
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Our tariff plan is near-identical to Germany's – that's the one that produced woeful amounts of energy, jobs and innovation

Jeremy Leggett: I accept George Monbiot's £100 solar PV bet

Let me begin with a plea to tone down this debate on feed-in tariffs. Jeremy Leggett and I have addressed each other politely and stuck to the facts. I have no ill feelings towards him; I simply believe that he is wrong about solar power. But the level of viciousness displayed on the comment threads, by email and on other sites has to be seen to be believed.

Where does fury of this kind come from? In my experience it's often associated with denial. People who don't like the outcomes dismiss the facts and lash out at the bearers of bad news. Could we, just for once, please try to get past this reaction, and judge the case on its merits?

My own instincts press me to support solar power. Like most environmentalists I believe that small is beautiful. I hate pylon lines and I don't care for the sight of big power plants of any description, wind farms included. I detest the big energy firms which provide our electricity. I am deeply attracted to the idea of being able to produce my own power, just as I love producing my own fruit and vegetables. But my attempts to find the best means of tackling climate change, which I explain at greater length in my book, Heat, have forced me to put my gut feelings to one side. Our choices must be based on the best possible information. Otherwise we waste our lives chasing chimeras.

Against my instincts I have come to oppose solar photovoltaic power (PV) in the UK, and the feed-in tariffs designed to encourage it, because the facts show unequivocally that this is a terrible investment. There are much better ways of spending the rare and precious revenue that the tariffs will extract from our pockets. If we are to prevent runaway climate change, we have to ensure that we get the biggest available bang for our buck: in other words the greatest cut in greenhouse gas production from the money we spend. Money spent on ineffective solutions is not just a waste: it's also a lost opportunity.

Environmentalists have no trouble understanding this argument when lobbying against nuclear power. Those who maintain that it's more expensive than renewable electricity argue that we shouldn't waste our money investing in it. But now I hear the same people telling us that we should support every form of renewable generation, regardless of the cost.

I'm delighted that Jeremy has accepted my bet that solar PV won't reach grid parity in 2013. I am also happy for the winnings to go to SolarAid. I agree with Jeremy that solar PV is an appropriate technology in Africa, where most people are off-grid and there's much more sunlight. It's in this country that it makes no sense.

And I accept Jeremy's challenge to write a column admitting I'm wrong if he wins the bet (but I won't accept his subtle slippage, substituting "near" for "at"). If I am wrong, it won't be the first time. In 2005, before I had crunched the numbers, I called on green NGOs to switch from supporting windfarms to promoting "decentralised microgeneration projects", which I considered a more attractive option. After I discovered just how badly this would set back efforts to decarbonise our power supplies, I changed my views. What would it take to change his?

Jeremy and I can speculate about how useful solar electricity will be in the UK until we've worn our keyboards out. Until our bet closes in 2013, by which time billions of pounds will have been committed, no one will know which of us is right.

But you don't have to rely on speculation to see how this is likely to pan out. As the old cookery programes used to say: "Here's one we prepared earlier." The German experiment, almost identical to the UK's, has now been running for ten years. An analysis published in November by the Ruhr University (pdf) shows just what it has achieved.

When the German programme began in 2000, it offered index-linked payments of 51 euro cents for every KWh of electricity produced by solar PV. These were guaranteed for 20 years. This is similar to the UK's initial subsidy, of 41p. As in the UK, the solar subsidy was, and remains, massively greater than the payments for other forms of renewable technology.

The real net cost of the solar PV installed in Germany between 2000 and 2008 was €35bn. The paper estimates a further real cost of €18bn in 2009 and 2010: a total of €53bn in ten years. These investments make wonderful sense for the lucky householders who could afford to install the panels, as lucrative returns are guaranteed by taxing the rest of Germany's electricity users. But what has this astonishing spending achieved? By 2008 solar PV was producing a grand total of 0.6% of Germany's electricity. 0.6% for €35bn. Hands up all those who think this is a good investment.

After years of these incredible payments, and the innovation and cost reductions they were supposed to stimulate, the paper estimates that saving one tonne of carbon dioxide through solar PV in Germany still costs €716. The International Energy Agency has produced an even higher estimate: €1000 per tonne. There are dozens of ways in which you can save carbon for 100th of the cost of solar PV at high latitudes.

The Ruhr University paper comes out against using feed-in tariffs to stimulate wind power as well, but in this case it shows that large-scale wind power in Germany is likely to become cheaper than conventional power by 2022, at which point subsidies will become redundant. It makes no such prediction for solar PV. It reinforces the point I made in my first sally: while Germany, like the UK, belongs to the European emissions trading scheme, any carbon savings made by feed-in tariffs merely allow polluting industries to raise their emissions. The net saving is zero. The paper suggests that a far more cost-effective mechanism would be to crank down the emissions cap under the trading scheme – then let renewable technologies fight it out to offer the biggest carbon saving per euro.

As for stimulating innovation, which is the main argument Jeremy makes in their favour, the report shows that Germany's feed-in tariffs have done just the opposite. Like the UK's scheme, Germany's is degressive – it goes down in steps over time. What this means is that the earlier you adopt the technology, the higher the tariff you receive. If you waited until 2009 to install your solar panel, you'll be paid 43c/kWh (or its inflation-proofed equivalent) for 20 years, rather than the 51c you get if you installed in 2000.

This encourages people to buy existing technology and deploy it right away, rather than to hold out for something better. In fact, the paper shows the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market. It argues that a far swifter means of stimulating innovation is for governments to invest in research and development. But the money has gone in the wrong direction: while Germany has spent some €53bn on deploying old technologies over ten years, in 2007 the government spent only €211m on renewables R&D.

In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is €175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there. They have simply been drawn out of other industries. The researchers say that:

"Any result other than a negative net employment balance of the German PV promotion would be surprising. In contrast, we would expect massive employment effects in export countries such as China."

Germany's solar exports (€0.2bn in 2006) have been greatly outweighed by its imports (€1.44bn in the same year). And it's not getting any better:

"Recent newspaper articles report that the situation remains dire, with the German solar industry facing unprecedented competition from cheaper Asian imports."

The UK's prospects of building the major export industry Jeremy dreams of are even slighter, as it will now have to take on Germany as well as China and Japan. We've missed the boat by years.

While I've been taking plenty of flak for arguing this case, I've also received a lot of support from green energy experts. Chris Goodall and David Thorpe, for example, have both come to similar conclusions, by working the case out from first principles. If you doubt what I say, I urge you to read their analyses, and the astonishing figures they have produced.

I have no horses in this race: I have no products to sell. I hope that some of you might be able to see that this is an honest attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and to find the most effective means of preventing runaway climate change.

Monbiot.com

• Feed-in tariffs
• Solar power
• Renewable energy
• Energy

George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A collection of images that show the beauty of wind power

• I accept George Monbiot's £100 solar PV bet
• George Monbiot: There is no 'green treachery' in questioning this solar panel rip-off

The Guardian web pages are reverberating to the clash of arms between George Monbiot and UK supporters of feed-in tariffs for solar photovoltaic panels and other small-scale renewables. Monbiot claims solar power is an extremely expensive way of generating electricity in the UK and that the new scheme is another way of subsidising the wealthy middle class. The fans of feed-in tariffs note the success of similar schemes in other countries. They think that the cashback proposals will help create jobs in businesses that install and maintain low carbon energy sources. The UK scheme will help drive down the costs of renewable technologies and increase public support for wind and alternative sources of electricity.

The argument has focused on solar photovoltaic panels installed on domestic roofs. This note tries to quantify some of the costs and benefits of the new scheme. I'll take one of the simplest possible examples: an installation of 12 panels on the roof of a medium-sized house in the south west of England, where solar radiation levels are relatively high for the UK. Does solar energy make sense in this country?

Before considering interest costs

a) The installation will generate a maximum of about 2 kilowatts in full sun on a south facing roof at midsummer.

b) Over the course of a year, we can expect the panels to produce about 1800 kilowatt hours.

c) The value of this output would be about £70 in today's UK wholesale market.

d) The system will typically cost about £10,000. The price of the solar panels is tending to fall but the associated electronics are in very short supply worldwide. The most important component is the 'inverter', the device that takes the DC low voltage current from the roof and turns it into an 240V AC current that is precisely aligned to the frequency of the AC on the local electricity grid.

e) A system will probably last about 25-30 years, although there will be some fall in power generated as the solar panels age.

f) If we assume the system lasts thirty years – and make no deduction for the decreasing production at the end of its life – the full cost of the installation is about £330 per annum. This is without considering any interest costs, maintenance or the probable need to replace the expensive inverter at least once during the 30 year life.

g) The absolute minimum annual cost of the installation is therefore at least four and a half times the wholesale value of the electricity generated. (£330/£70).

h) We might choose to compare the cost of the system with the full retail price of the electricity produced. If the homeowner is paying 12.5 per kilowatt hour, the annual value of the electricity produced is £225 (1800 kWh times 12.5p).

i) Without the huge subsidy provided by the feed-in tariff, the annual electricity output comes nowhere close to covering the costs of the installation over its thirty year life. At current electricity prices, the system will produce electricity worth £7,750 compared to an installation cost of £10,000. In conventional terms, this is an extremely bad investment for society as a whole. Because the feed-in tariff rewards homeowner with over three times the current retail price for electricity, it may nevertheless be good for homeowners that invest in solar. The people who pay for this generosity are all the other homeowners using electricity in the UK who don't install panels on their roofs. This is the crucial point: a subsidy system that may be good for recipients may be damaging for the rest of society.

After interest costs

j) If I have £10,000, I could put some solar panels or I could invest my money in 30 year government bonds. Today, these bonds will pay me about £450 a year before tax. If I pay tax at 40%, this falls to £270.

k) When assessing whether solar panels are a good investment, the rational householder will consider the prospective disadvantage of not getting this income of £270 a year, as well as the cost of the initial purchase. He or she will factor this loss into their thinking on solar panels.

l) Adding £270 a year to the annual cost of £330 produces a total figure of £600 a year as the full financial impact of putting up solar panels.

m) This is almost three times the full retail of the electricity produced. Without large subsidy or huge increases in the future prices of electricity, solar panels are a terrible investment.

The proponents of feed-in tariffs seem to accept this broad logic. But they respond by saying that the scheme will assist in the development of a new industry and drive down prices. There may be something in this argument. However the cost of solar installations is largely determined by the world market for PV panels, of which the UK will always be a tiny part. We cannot make much of a difference to global prices. In fact, it can be argued that the new UK subsidies are likely to divert scarce inverters to the UK where they will typically produce about half the maximum output of an inverter in a sunny country. So the UK feed-in tariffs, at least as applied to solar PV, might be said to be actually decreasing the total amount of renewable energy produced around the world.

Does this analysis apply to wind power? No, not completely. A moderately sized wind turbine suitable for a farm – such as the Aeolus Power 50 kW model in a good location – will produce 100 times the electricity of a 2kw solar installation for about 25 times the cost. In other words, the productivity of the capital employed is about four times as great. This means that small scale wind power is almost economic. If, for whatever reason, we choose to subsidise small scale renewable energy in the UK we need to focus our money on wind energy. This argument applies even if electricity prices double or treble in the next decades. Wind we have in abundance, sunshine we are short of. By any standards, focusing on solar PV doesn't make sense and will add to the energy costs* of householders not benefiting from the feed-in tariffs.

* Assume one million households (about 4% of the UK) install PV panels producing an average of 1800 kWh a year. The annual subsidy will be approximately £700m, all of which is paid for by other electricity users. If all this cost is eventually paid for by householders, the cost will be about £35-£30 a year, or perhaps 5% of current bills. (Only about one third of UK electricity demand comes from homes but householders will eventually pay the whole subsidy cost because of higher prices for goods and services because of the increased price of electricity).

• Feed-in tariffs
• Solar power
• Wind power

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Asian elephant calf doing well after being declared dead in the womb during mother's labour at Taronga zoo in Sydney

Forest conservation project in Bolivia proves that unless a nation as a whole cuts deforestation, individual carbon offset schemes are worthless

It is the ultimate greenwash nightmare. A tough international deal to curb emissions of greenhouse gases is passed in Mexico later this year. Companies then meet their targets not by cutting their own pollution but by buying into hundreds of forest "conservation" projects round the world. But those projects then fail to deliver real benefits for forests or staunch the flow of carbon into the atmosphere.

Some big-time green groups prosper but the planet burns.

Exhibit A in this doomsday scenario is a 14-year-old forest conservation project in Bolivia called the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project, one of the world's largest schemes to fix carbon in protected forests. It is the brainchild of the US green group The Nature Conservancy and industrial partners, including the oil company BP and America's largest burner of coal, American Electric Power.

The Noel Kempff project is hailed by The Nature Conservancy as a model for the operation of Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) – the international plan to allow countries and companies to offset their carbon emissions by investing in preventing the destruction of forests.

Like much else, negotiations on Redd stalled in Copenhagen last December. But it is still on the agenda for agreement when talks resume in Cancun next December.

Some think such projects could scupper Redd though. Last autumn Greenpeace dubbed the Neol Kempff project a "carbon scam".

The $10m project, launched back in 1996, doubled the size of an existing national park and sought to project more than 800,000 hectares of forest, while testing the idea of running a forest as a verifiable carbon sink. It currently employs 27 rangers. With deforestation thought responsible for an estimate 17% of carbon emissions, the stakes are high.

The problem, however, is summed up in one word: leakage. That is jargon for what happens when the loggers put their chainsaws in the back of a pickup, drive down the road to the next forest, and resume activities. In other words, can protecting one place prevent the forces of forest destruction from simply moving elsewhere?

This is hard to do. Since the start of the Noel Kempff project, deforestation rates in Bolivia have gone up. So the argument is that one-off carbon offsetting projects do not deliver real benefits to the atmosphere unless governments undertake much wider efforts to curb deforestation.

For this reason Greenpeace is not alone in believing that Redd should only compensate at the national level. No awarding of carbon credits for "sub-national" projects like Noel Kempff. In other words: unless a nation as a whole cuts deforestation, then nobody gets any carbon credits. Only that way can you stop leakage wrecking it.

But groups such as the Nature Conservancy strongly disagree. They have a clear institutional interest. Their main activity is buying or managing land for conservation. It says there are good reasons for backing sub-national projects and has lobbied hard to ensure they stay in the UN's plans.

The Nature Conservancy says "national-scale accounting is the ultimate goal" of Redd. "However, a transition period should be allowed in which sub-national or project-scale activities can generate credits for sale in compliance markets."

It adds that "this type of activity will need to be accomplished at a much larger scale to make a significant difference to greenhouse gas emissions". And that is where the difference arises. The Nature Conservancy thinks sub-national projects will result in "learning by doing"; its critics think they will fatally undermine the whole enterprise.

While hailed as a model, the Noel Kempff project does not augur well for being able to measure carbon in forests. By 2004, the corporate partners in the project had reported offsets of 7.4m tonnes of CO2. But in 2005 a new evaluation cut that figure to just over 1m.

But even this could turn out to be an over-estimate. The 2005 audit shaved 16% off claimed offsets to account for leakage. Greenpeace cites a report from Winrock International, a non-profit consultancy, saying the long-term leakage figure could be much higher.

How would this play out in the carbon markets? Under the Noel Kempff plan, 51% of the emissions reductions achieved by the project can be claimed as offsets by corporate partners like AEP and BP. The remaining 49% goes to the Bolivian government. The original plan was to sell the emissions reductions on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which trades in voluntary carbon offsets.

Both AEP and BP told the Guardian this week that they had not offset any of their emissions as a result of the Noel Kempff project. BP said: "The project has not yet generated any carbon credits and BP has received no credits from it."

AEP, which burns 77m tonnes of coal annually in the US, uses the project to burnish its environmental image. It advertises its support for the Noel Kempff project on its website as part of its corporate citizenship activities.

It says that the company is "committed to combating tropical deforestation and putting in place criteria to ensure that forest offsets can be part of the toolkit for addressing global climate change". Both BP and AEP referred questions about the progress of the project to The Nature Conservancy.

It says Greenpeace's description of the Noel Kempff project as a scam was "an attempt to discredit emissions offsets that businesses might claim by supporting such efforts in the future". Rather, it says, the project was a pioneering activity from which much has been learned. AEP agrees. It says: "The reduction in the offsets from the project should be viewed as a validation, not criticism, of the project as it demonstrates that [The Nature Conservancy] and the project funders were willing to adjust the offset amounts based on improved science."

But have the right lessons been learned? Better carbon accounting is of course a good thing. But if the Noel Kempff project is truly a model for a future world of carbon markets rooting in rainforest conservation projects, it suggests real problems ahead. If companies with environmental reputations to defend can become bogged down in charges of greenwash, what about the bad guys?

• Forests
• Deforestation
• Carbon emissions
• Corporate social responsibility
• Carbon offsetting
• Bolivia

Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The stag beetle is Britain's largest insect and one of our most endangered species

Makers of The Cove, an Oscar-winning documentary on Japan's dolphin slaughter, drew authorities' attention to alleged whale meat smuggling operation at a Santa Monica sushi restaurant

Federal prosecutors filed charges yesterday against a sushi chef and a Santa Monica restaurant following allegations that they served illegal and endangered whale meat.

Typhoon Restaurant Inc, which owns The Hump restaurant, and sushi chef Kiyoshiro Yamamoto, 45, were charged with illegally selling an endangered species product.

According to a search warrant, marine mammal activists were served whale during three separate visits to the restaurant. Tests confirmed the meat came from a Sei whale, an endangered species protected by international treaties, documents said.

Agents also seized some suspected whale meat during a search of the restaurant Friday but are awaiting test results to confirm it was Sei whale, US attorney spokesman Thom Mrozak said.

In October, two activists posing as customers went to The Hump and ordered "omakase," which means they let the chef choose the choicest fresh fish. They also requested whale and pocketed a sample.

The young women worked with Louie Psihoyos, director of the Oscar-winning documentary The Cove, to record the meal with a hidden camera and microphone.

"These are endangered animals being cut up for dinner," Psihoyos said. "It's an abuse of science."

Psihoyos took their findings to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which started an investigation.

Activists claim the whale meat came from Japan's scientific whaling program and was illegally exported, but the US attorney's office is still investigating the source of the meat.

Japan kills hundreds of whales in Antarctic waters each year under its research whaling programme, which has triggered violent protests by conservationists and caused strong objections by diplomats in recent years.

An attorney for Typhoon, Gary Lincenberg, said the restaurant accepts responsibility for serving whale and will agree to pay a fine. If convicted, the company could be fined up to $200,000.

Court records say agents interviewed Yamamoto, a Culver City resident and a chef at The Hump for the past seven years, and he admitted serving whale to two young women.

Yamamoto's attorney, Mark Byrne, declined to comment on the charges, saying he hadn't had time to review them. If convicted, Yamamoto could face a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

• Whaling
• Endangered species
• Fishing
• Food
• Activism
• United States
• Food & drink

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Tom Tew of Natural England talks about an audit showing wildlife species becoming extinct at rate of two a year

Jon Dennis

A new report from Natural England documents about 500 types of flora and fauna that have been lost completely from England. Here are some examples of those species, plus some that are threatened – and a few success stories, too

• Lobby consists of 90 academics, politicians and experts
• Claim appropriate information has not been made available

Pressure on the government to organise an independent inquiry into a new generation of nuclear power stations will intensify today with a call for action from a group of 90 high-ranking academics, politicians and technical experts.

The huge lobby says the "climategate" email scandal and other events have shaken public trust in the scientific governance of environmental risk, making a wider assessment of nuclear power more important than ever.

Paul Dorfman, an energy policy research fellow at Warwick University who has been coordinating support for an inquiry, said more debate was needed for a decision on nuclear to have full democratic backing. "The kind of consultation we have had so far has been flawed and inadequate. The government has put the cart before the horse by wanting endorsement before either the design of the reactor and the way waste will be treated has been decided. There is a democratic deficit here that needs correcting," he said.

Nuclear consulting engineer John Large, another campaign signatory, agreed. "The public consultation has been a failure because the appropriate information has not been made available for the public to make a proper assessment of the benefits and risks," he said.

"We need Ed Miliband [the energy and climate change secretary] to organise an independent inquiry as he is entitled to do under the justification regulations," he added.

These two critics are standing alongside a long list of academics, such as Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University and Mark Pelling of King's College London, as well as MPs including Simon Hughes of the Liberal Democrats, Michael Meacher from Labour and Jane Davidson, the environment minister in the Welsh assembly.

A "justification" process is a requirement under European Union law but Miliband will himself be able to decide whether he needs an inquiry or not. He is believed to want to take this step as soon as possible so that new nuclear power stations could come on stream in 2017, in time to meet an expected energy shortage.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change was unable to comment on the matter last night.

• Nuclear power
• Energy industry
• Energy
• Ed Miliband

Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds