Another view that must not be heard

The BBC's Matt McGrath has been looking at a new report by a green think tank called the Stockholm Environment Institute. No surprise there - there is a general acceptance among BBC environment journalists that green think tanks are the ones that publish interesting stuff.

The report looks quite good, describing how many of the carbon credits awarded to Russia and Ukraine are actually fraudulent. This is, in itself, not surprising either - I made a similar point in the report I wrote for GWPF on the unintended consequences of climate policy.

Click to read more ...

Another scientivist

Anthony points out the eructions of an Exeter University geographer named Stephan Harrison, who says that debating sceptics is like wrestling with pigs. 

Ho hum - another day, another academic making a fool of themselves.

Nevertheless, Dr Harrison has an interesting CV. Apparently his research work on glaciers is centred on Patagonia although he previously worked on the Tian Shan mountains in Central Asia. Probably fair to say that he has a very large carbon footprint indeed. It's therefore no surprise to see that he is also an very keen environmental activist. He is:

Click to read more ...

Stern's pecuniary diversion

The Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information has discovered that while Lord Stern was deputy chairman of the Global Green Growth Institute, a major contract was awarded to the Grantham Institute at LSE, which is of course also headed by Lord Stern too.

Apparently alarm bells were sounded by Danish civil servants at the time but you rather get the impression that their concerns were overridden. This seems to have captured the interest of experts in corruption:

Click to read more ...

Davey knew Deben was conflicted

A few weeks ago I came across some new correspondence between the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee (ECCC) and Lord Deben relating to his appointment as chairman of the advisory Committee on Climate Change. This was on the committee's web server, but didn't appear to have been linked from the publications page.

Click to read more ...

A feature, not a bug

Eyebrows have been raised over Chris Huhne's landing a job with a US bioenergy business, reportedly worth £100,000 for two days a week, shortly after being released from prison for perverting the course of justice. Priyanka Shrestha, writing at Energy Live News, wonders if maybe crime does pay.

She's right of course. We at Bishop Hill have noticed that there is a curious tendency among those involved with energy policy to move on to extraordinarily lucrative jobs in the energy industry. And it's not just the politicians, it's the civil servants too. PJ O'Rourke has observed that when politicians decide what gets bought and sold, the first thing bought and sold is the politicians. Deals for the purchase of civil servants are not far behind though.

So make no mistake. Corruption is a feature of "government energy policy", not a bug.

Obama wants to let windfarms kill eagles with impunity

AP is reporting that the Obama administration is considering new rules that would allow wind farms to kill eagles with impunity:

Eagle deaths have forced the Obama administration into a difficult choice between its unbridled support for wind energy and enforcing environmental laws that could slow the industry's growth.

Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in an interview with the AP before his departure, denied any preferential treatment for wind. Interior Department officials said that criminal prosecution, regardless of the industry, is always a "last resort."

"There's still additional work to be done with eagles and other avian species, but we are working on it very hard," Salazar said. "We will get to the right balance."

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles. The regulation is currently under review at the White House.

The article notes that oil companies have been handed enormous fines for killing wolves. This looks like an extraordinarily unevenhanded approach to the law. Coming on top of the revelation that the tax authorities in the US targeted Obama's political opponents one can sense something of a pattern emerging.

And not a pretty one either.

Sue and settle

This is a pretty extraordinary story from Larry Bell, writing at Forbes. It seems that bureaucrats and environmentalists are agreeing between them that the latter will sue the former for breach of environmental law and regulation.

“Sue and Settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein  court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want.

The taxpayer then pays the costs of both sides, with green lawyers picking up tens of millions of dollars over the years.

Officially sanctioned conflict

Some weeks back, I noticed the odd dual role of Bernie Bulkin, chairman of DECC's Office for Renewable Energy Deployment, who doubles as an adviser to VantagePoint Capital Partners, a company that invests in the energy sector. Reader Terry Sanders has been following up on this story and writes to update us on what he has found.

After reading [your post] I looked into Bernie and discovered he was a director of Ludgate Investments which had a significant piece of its funds (7.9%) in a biomass company so I left a comment on his blog asking about it. My comment stayed in the "awaiting moderation" for 10 days which 1 thought was strange. I figured if they haven't let it through or declined it then they must be discussing it so I sent in a FOI request for all communication regarding the comment.

Click to read more ...

Soft totalitarianism

The news this morning that a couple in Rotherham had their foster children removed from them because they were UKIP members almost defies belief.

It seems to me to be symptomatic of a much wider problem with soft totalitarianism. There are now an enormous number of views the holding of which will lead to immediate retribution from left-leaning bureaucrats, not the least of which is global warming scepticism.

Click to read more ...

That green energy scandal

It's here. I think we are going to be seeing a great deal more of this kind of thing.

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.

MPs vote to keep their addresses secret

MPs are clearly rattled by the Jacqui Smith affair - can't have the proles knowing how the second homes scam works. They are covering their tracks just as fast as they possibly can. As Spy Blog notes, the cockroaches have voted to keep details of their constituency homes secret.

Too depressing to read?

I'm going to be adding this to my shopping list at Amazon. Not that I need to be any more depressed about the state of the country, but he may have some ideas on what to do about it.

Look who's on the make

The news that a bunch of Labour peers have (allegedly) been tarting themselves about on their purported ability to get legislation changed for their "clients" has given the week's news a delicious fin-de-siecle sense of grubbiness and corruption.

One of the commenters at the relevant post at Labour Home helpfully points out that one of the alleged culprits has previous form:

Typical that Lord Taylor of Blackburn is one of them. He's a central character in the saga of Jack Straw's embarassment by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It was Lord Taylor of Blackburn who "invited" U.S. company Canatxx, with no previous connection to Blackpool, to make the £3,000 "a non-political donation" to Jack Straw's 25th anniversary party that was never declared. A bit before Canatxx made a planning application to Lancashire County Council to to store gas in salt caverns. Lord Taylor was a paid consultant for Canatxx.

Oh, and Lord Taylor of Blackburn forgot to declare an interest when asking a supplementary question about gas storage. Canatxx's business is gas storage. He made an apology later.

Hello, what's all this...

According to El-Beeb, a Tory MP has complained that he was visited in his office by police demanding to see his correspondence.

Crooked Tories

The government backed down this afternoon on the idea of making MPs' expenses exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

It looks like Gordon Brown had done a deal with some of the less salubrious Tory backbenchers to force the changes through, but was undone when Cameron made it a whipped vote against. Who was involved? I guess we'll find out when the expenses start to be published.

Update on Jan 21, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Update: The deal may have been done with Sir Michael Spicer, chairman of the 1922 committee. That would mean that it was potentially the majority of the Tory troops.