Category: Climate Crisis

  • Rishi Sunak cut air taxes and blocked climate levy after airline lobbying

    Spread the love

    Original article by Lucas Amin and Ben Webster republished from openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    Rishi Sunak halved has aviation tax on domestic flights 
    | Liam McBurney/alenaohneva / Getty / Pexels. Composite by openDemocracy

    Rishi Sunak slashed aviation tax on domestic flights and rejected a new ‘frequent flyer levy’ after lobbying by the airline industry, openDemocracy can reveal.

    The decision to halve air passenger duty (APD), which takes effect next month, will mean more flights and less rail journeys in Britain – undermining the government’s net-zero commitment.

    Clean transport campaigner Matt Finch, the director of Transport and Environment, told openDemocracy: “Simply taxing airlines in the same way that all other UK companies are taxed would bring in precious funds to the Treasury, and stop the ridiculous favouritism shown to airlines.”

    He added: “It’s clear that the aviation sector gets preferential treatment from the government, but it’s unclear exactly why.”

    In June 2021, when Sunak was chancellor, Ryanair’s director of route development told the Treasury that APD “should be abolished in order to stimulate immediate traffic growth”, documents obtained by openDemocracy under Freedom of Information law reveal.

    Ryanair said it could offer “ultra-low” domestic fares if the tax was reduced. It has responded to Sunak’s cut by sharply increasing flights from London, adding three a day between the capital and Edinburgh and three a week to Newquay, Cornwall.

    Responding to the Treasury’s June 2021 consultation on the plans, British Airways’ owner, International Airlines Group (IAG), and easyJet also said they supported APD tax cuts. IAG said “positive outcomes could include new routes, increased frequency and larger aircraft on existing routes as well as lower fares”.

    EasyJet said: “Our analysis shows that if domestic APD is reduced by 50%, this would

    support an overall 31% increase in domestic volume to 10.6 million passengers.”

    But the UK’s rail industry warned that cutting air taxes would lead to 222,000 passengers shifting from rail to air each year, equivalent to an extra 1,000 domestic flights. The Rail Delivery Group said that reducing the cost of flying “runs counter to government’s legal commitment to decarbonise” and could increase carbon emissions by 27,000 tonnes a year.

    Sunak ignored the warning and in October 2021 announced a 50% cut to APD on domestic flights, from £13 to £6.50.

    It’s clear that the aviation sector gets preferential treatment from the government, but it’s unclear exactly why

    Matt Finch, Transport and Environment

    Silviya Barrett, the director of Policy and Research at Campaign for Better Transport, said: “In the context of the climate emergency, it’s hard to think of a more wrong-headed policy than making domestic flights cheaper. Not only will it encourage more polluting travel, but it will reduce revenue which could and should be invested in sustainable alternatives.”

    France is taking the opposite approach by banning domestic flights between cities that are linked by a train journey of less than 2.5 hours.

    The railway industry’s ability to compete with cheap flights was further undermined last week when the government increased rail fares by up to 5.9%, the biggest rise for 11 years.

    The airline industry already benefits from the absence of tax on jet fuel and no VAT on airline tickets. A study last year estimated that taxing jet fuel in the UK at the same rate as road fuel would have raised £6.7bn in 2019. The sector generates around 8% of UK emissions.

    Sunak, who now travels around Britain in a private jet, also rejected a recommendation to introduce a progressive tax on frequent flyers.

    The Climate Change Committee has found that a “frequent flyer levy” –which makes those who fly more often pay progressively more tax – is a fairer way of taxing aviation.

    Research shows that just 15% of Brits take 70% of flights.

    It’s hard to think of a more wrong-headed policy than making domestic flights cheaper

    Silviya Barrett, Campaign for Better Transport

    Nine in ten people back the idea of a frequent flyer levy, according to a survey by conservation charity WWF and think tank Demos, but Ryanair told the Treasury not to do it.

    Ryanair argued that a frequent flyer levy would be “likely only to punish passengers that have an ongoing practical requirement to fly frequently”, while IAG told the Treasury that “taxing aviation does not benefit the environment”.

    Grahame Morris, a Labour member of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, told openDemocracy: “It is counterintuitive of this government to remain committed to ‘Jet Zero’ by 2050 and at the same time to reject a frequent flyer levy while alternative sustainable aviation fuels to replace existing fossil fuels are still under development and evaluation.”

    A government spokesperson said: “We are absolutely committed to levelling up the UK and delivering on our net-zero commitments, which is why from April we are cutting duty in half for flights within the UK, except for private jets, and introducing new higher rates of duty for ultra-long haul flights, ensuring that those who fly furthest contribute the most.

    “In line with the tax policy-making process, we consulted on a frequent flyer levy in 2021, which a wide range of stakeholders fed into. Having considered views, including around privacy and data concerns of implementing such a levy, we concluded that Air Passenger Duty should remain the principal tax on the aviation sector.”

    Original article by Lucas Amin and Ben Webster republished from openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

  • 100+ Groups Urge Congress to Abandon ‘Carbon Utilization Fantasy’

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    “Promoting the utilization of captured CO2 in petrochemicals, plastics, and fuels, as your legislation would encourage, will perpetuate environmental justice harms and subsidize the oil and gas industry to do it.”

    More than 100 organizations on Monday urged the congressional sponsors of a new proposal that would boost the tax credit for certain carbon capture projects to shift their focus to solutions that will actually address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.

    The groups—including 350.org, Beyond Plastics, Center for Biological Diversity, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN), and Waterspirit—oppose the Captured Carbon Utilization Parity Act (S. 542/H.R. 1262).

    Introduced last week by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), the legislation would increase the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and utilization (CCU) “to match the incentives for carbon capture and storage (CCS) for both direct air capture (DAC) and the power and industrial sectors.”

    The groups sent a letter to the four sponsors arguing that:

    This bill does not advance climate solutions, but is rather a giveaway to fossil fuel companies and other corporate polluters under the guise of climate action. Promoting the utilization of captured CO2 in petrochemicals, plastics, and fuels, as your legislation would encourage, will perpetuate environmental justice harms and subsidize the oil and gas industry to do it. Rather than perpetuating these climate scams, we encourage you to support the elimination of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry instead of enriching them through carbon capture schemes.

    In addition to stressing that such projects consume a lot of water while producing emissions and chemical waste—further endangering frontline communities that are disproportuantely home to people of color and low-income individuals—the organizations pointed out that “carbon capture has a long history of overpromising and under-delivering.”

    “The overwhelming majority of captured carbon to date has been used to increase oil production via enhanced oil recovery (EOR),” the letter highlights. “The myth of a massive carbon management paradigm that uses and re-uses carbon dioxide on any large scale serves only to greenwash the reality of how carbon dioxide is used: for oil production.”

    “As laid bare in an investigation from the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the 45Q tax credit is rife with abuse as credits are improperly claimed,” the letter further notes. “Moreover, documents uncovered by the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into major oil companies and climate disinformation revealed that the biggest proponents of CCS also understand the technology to be costly, ineffective, and requiring continued and increasing government subsidization.”

    “The myth of a massive carbon management paradigm that uses and re-uses carbon dioxide on any large scale serves only to greenwash the reality of how carbon dioxide is used: for oil production.”

    Citing a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the organizations also explained that “in contrast to things like solar power and batteries, carbon capture is not the kind of technology that gets significantly cheaper over time, and increasing public subsidies to spark a carbon management industry will not result in a self-sustaining system.”

    According to dozens of groups representing communities across the country, “The carbon utilization fantasy should be abandoned, with focus restored on the solutions we know will help combat the climate crisis, like renewable energy and storage, electrification, energy efficiency, real zero-waste materials systems, agroecology, and more.”

    SEHN executive director Carolyn Raffensperger told Common Dreams that her group is supporting the letter “because carbon capture use and sequestration (CCUS) is the fossil fuel industry’s diabolical plan to line its investors’ pockets with public money” and “the antithesis of a climate solution in that it delays real, tried and true solutions.”

    “Further, the entire 45Q tax credit program turns sound environmental policy on its head: Instead of requiring the polluter to pay for its damage, 45Q tax credits pay the polluter to pollute,” Raffensperger added. Pointing to proposed CO2 pipelines in Iowa, she said:

    Keenly aware of the climate crisis, we investigated the claims that industry was making that we could address climate by putting a big machine on top of various polluting facilities and transporting the CO2 across the countryside and burying it deep underground. What we discovered was that the entire enterprise would require more energy than the original facility required. It will disrupt farm land and pose grave risks in case of a pipeline rupture. Even worse, we found that this vast complex system of carbon capture, transportation, and either use or disposal is horribly under-regulated by [the Environmental Protection Agency], the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the [Internal Revenue Service], and others. The frosting on this toxic cake is that the public pays the fossil fuel industry with public money and the public gets no climate benefit. If anything, CCUS makes climate change worse.

    “Heed the lessons of the recent train derailment and pipeline disasters. That is, fix the regulatory mess before pouring money into 45Q tax credits,” she urged U.S. lawmakers. “The tax credits are like shoveling coal into the boiler of a runaway train.”

    As Rachel Dawn Davis, public policy and justice organizer at Waterspirit, said Monday in an email to Common Dreams, independent science has already shown that investments in carbon capture “would be a waste of money and time,” and “we are experiencing the sixth mass extinction; we have no time to continue wasting.”

    “If we are to provide a livable future for current and future generations of young people and all creation, we must invest solely in renewable energy, not furthering fossil fuel fallacies,” she emphasized. “Subsidies going to the most heinous polluters are only continuing through this legislation; congressional representatives must know better by now.”

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

  • Fossil Fuel Linked Donors Gift Half a Million to Conservative Party

    Spread the love

    Original article by Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

    The CEOs of jet fuel suppliers, gas turbine makers, oil and gas companies are among those who made large donations in the last quarter of 2022.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Credit: Number 10 Downing Street / Simon Walker, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

    The Conservative Party has received more than £632,000 in new donations from individuals and firms tied to polluting industries, DeSmog can reveal. 

    New Electoral Commission records released today show that the bulk of the fossil-fuel linked funds came from Christopher Harborne, who donated £500,000 in the final quarter of 2022 – the joint-largest donation registered by the party during this period. 

    Further donations were made by a gas turbine manufacturer, a North Sea oil investor, a petrochemical engineering firm, and a peer with shares in major oil and gas companies.

    The revelation comes at an important moment for UK climate policy. Sunak’s government is due to release an update to its net zero strategy next month after a High Court judge ruled it lacked sufficient detail. 

    The government recently opened up a new round of North Sea oil and gas licences for oil and gas exploration, at a time when the UN has warned that only drastic, immediate cuts to carbon emissions can avert a climate catastrophe.

    Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said donations from polluting industries represented a “dangerous conflict of interest”. 

    Fossil Fuel Ties

    Harborne is the owner of AML Global, an aviation fuel supplier operating in 1,200 locations worldwide with a distribution network that includes “main and regional oil companies”, according to its website. Harborne is also the CEO of Sheriff Global Group, which trades in private jets. 

    Before the pandemic, aviation emissions accounted for eight percent of the UK’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, according to the government’s Climate Change Committee, yet the government granted nearly £250 million in “free pollution permits” to the industry in 2021.  

    In the past, Harborne has provided gifts to Conservative MP Steve Baker, who co-founded an anti-green group of back benchers  – the Net Zero Scrutiny Group – and who has said that a considerable amount of climate science is “actually still contestable”.

    Harborne has also donated some £6.5 million to the Brexit Party – now Reform UK – whose co-founder Nigel Farage has called for a referendum on the government’s net zero targets and has labelled the focus on carbon emissions “alarmism”. Harborne has rarely spoken about the climate crisis, so the details of his personal views are unknown. 

    As revealed by DeSmog, Harborne also donated £515,000 to the Conservatives in the second quarter of 2022, when the party accepted a total of £651,000 from the aviation industry.

    These donations landed in the same period as the government’s “Jet Zero Strategy”, published in July. The policy – which aims to cut UK aviation emissions to net-zero by 2050, allow travellers to fly “guilt-free” and supports further aviation sector growth – has been dismissed by environmental groups as “pure greenwash”.

    Harborne and AML Global have been approached for comment. 

    Other Donors

    The new Electoral Commission records show that the Conservatives received a further £15,000 in the final quarter of 2022 from Centrax Industries – a firm that specialises in manufacturing gas turbines. Centrax has now given more than £300,000 to the Conservatives since 2010.

    DeSmog previously revealed that companies and individuals involved in North Sea oil and gas – including Centrax – donated a total of £419,900 to the Conservatives ahead of and during the government’s review into the future of the sector from July 2020 to March 2021.

    Another Conservative donor in the final quarter of 2022 was Nova Venture Holdings, which donated £52,260. The company is wholly owned by Jacques Tohme, who describes himself as an “energy investor” on LinkedIn and lists his current role as co-founder and director of Tailwind Energy, an oil and gas company. 

    According to its website,Tailwind focuses on “maximis[ing] value in UK continental shelf (UKCS) opportunities”, an area which includes the North Sea. Serica Energy reportedly has an agreement in place to buy Tailwind, which is expected to complete in March. The acquisition will make Serica one of the 10 largest North Sea oil and gas producers. 

    A further £10,000 was given to the Conservatives by Alan Lusty – the CEO of Adi Group – adding to the £17,000 that he has given to the party since 2021. According to its website, Adi Group is a “leading supplier of engineering services to the petrochemical industry”. These services “add significant value to petrochemical engineering companies”, Adi says, though the firm claims “to work towards delivering a low-carbon economy” through its products. Adi also provides engineering services to the aerospace and automotive industries. 

    Finally, the Conservative Party received £50,000 from one of its peers – Lord John Nash – who also donated £5,000 to the local Wantage constituency party. According to his register of interests, Lord Nash holds shares in Royal Dutch Shell, the second largest investor-owned oil and gas company in the world by revenue, and BHP, the Australian-based mining, oil and gas firm. 

    Lord Nash, who has run several private equity funds, has donated more than £560,000 to the party since 2018. 

    The £632,260 accumulated by the Tories from fossil fuel interests and high polluters represents more than 13 percent of the party’s £4.8 million income during the final quarter of 2022. 

    Rishi Sunak himself received £141,000 from energy interests during his Conservative leadership campaign in the summer of 2022. 

    Jacques Tohme, Tailwind Energy, Centrax, Adi Group, Lord Nash and the Conservative Party have been approached for comment. 

    Additional research by Clare Carlile.

    Original article by Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

  • The British Museum and BP – will they or won’t they?

    Spread the love

    Ed: Hieroglyphs protest at British Museum by ‘BP or not BP?’ (Full performance)

    Hieroglyphs protest at British Museum by ‘BP or not BP?’ (Full performance) December 2022

  • Too late to save environment, says Green Party co-founder

    Spread the love

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875

    One of the founders of what would become the Green Party of England and Wales has declared “it’s too late” to save the environment.

    Michael Benfield, who helped set up the new political movement in the 1970s, said he believed the “battle for the world’s environmental survival” was “at this moment, lost”.

    Speaking at an event to mark the party’s 50th anniversary, Mr Benfield told the BBC he had become “somewhat of a doomsayer” about efforts to protect the environment.

    …

    In a speech to the gathering, Green MP Caroline Lucas, warned: “We don’t have another 50 years.”

    She said: “We are living through maybe one of the most consequential decades of human history, which I appreciate is a very big thing to say.

    “The climate and nature crises are more critical than ever, and it feels to me that what falls upon the shoulders of the Green Party is a most extraordinary responsibility but an awesome opportunity as well.”

    …

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875