Europe fails on carbon storage and capture
Hopes of Europe becoming a world leader in the development of a key technology to combat global warming have been dashed, and more than €1.5 billion of EU funding available to support carbon capture & storage (CCS) projects will now be diverted to new renewable energy schemes. The announcement today that steelmakers ArcelorMittal will not proceed with their Ulcos project in France means that not one single new CCS scheme is set to proceed.
Europe’s Prime Ministers declared in 2007 that they wanted to see up to 12 CCS demonstration projects in operation by 2015. The technology removes CO2 from fossil fuel power stations and industrial plants for permanent injection into rocks deep underground. The UK’s Coalition Government is committed to proceed with four CCS projects, but all require subsidy and the Treasury has preferred to turn down the offer of EU support rather than make a financial commitment itself. Governments in the Netherlands, Romania and Poland have also failed to provide the additional money necessary.
British Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies was responsible for introducing the EU’s special funding mechanism for CCS, and expressed bitter disappointment.
This is a huge blow to efforts to combat climate change. Most studies suggest that CCS is needed to prevent more than 20% of global warming emissions escaping into the atmosphere, but the technology must be developed to bring down costs.
Today’s news marks a major failure by Europe to step up to the mark. We talk big about the need for action yet fail to deliver.
Daily Express makes up anti-Europe stories (hard to believe, I know)
One of the joys of the Leveson Report is the exposure of what one might call dubious editorial practices. here was one of the gems from the questioning of Hugh Whittow, editor of the Daily Express, by Robert Jay;
Q. Can I look more seriously at: “75 per cent say quit the EU now.”
Q. It’s fair to say that that 22 October 2011 headline —
Q. — the YouGov poll in fact showed 28 per cent of people did support quitting the EU —
Q. — and 47 per cent supporting renegotiating the terms.
Q. You’ve abrogated the two to get to 75 per cent, which is misleading, isn’t it?
A. Well, what you say, it’s misleading, obviously I can’t read the copy, but I’m sure that in the body of the copy it’s explained.
Q. That may well be right, and let’s assume it is, and we can’t read the body of the copy, but the question relates to the headline —
A. I have to —
Q. — that the headline —
A. — accept what you say. Yes, that is right.
Q. Is it another example of two things: one, a misleading headline; do you accept that?
A. I accept that from what you say, yes, but I would like to…
* Mark Valladares is today’s day editor. He rather likes Europe…