The UK government has set the world´s first carbon budget, but it contains so many offset loopholes that most emission reduction commitments could be met without any action to clean up power generation and industry in the UK.
Although carbon offsets are often presented as emissions reductions,
they do not actually reduce emissions. At best, they move reductions to
where it is cheapest to make them, which normally means a shift from
Northern to Southern countries.
The oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists who have spent almost $45 million on President Obama´s clean energy plan in recent months need not worry: it is so full of holes that US industry could avoid making any reductions at home until at least 2026, rendering talk of a 17 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 largely meaningless.
Why are some countries intent on killing Kyoto? Do the reductions targets tell the whole story? Who is paying for it all? This fact sheet answers all your questions about the UN climate talks in Copenhagen.
With a new President in the White House there’s a fresh approach to climate change and energy policy in the US. But the Energy bill currently going through Congress is based on the widely-criticised “Cap & Trade” system and has been weakened further by a massive corporate lobbying campaign. How does this feed into the UN talks in Bonn in June which prepare the way for the critical meeting in Copenhagen in December?
Unless we tackle issues of equity, public accountability and corporate control, it remains difficult to see how even a green new deal, however worthy the intention, will not end up throwing good money after bad