dishonest claims to be leading the world in tackling climate change. SHEILA MALONE reports. Failure will result mainly from reliance on voluntary measures and targets. For example, the building industry routinely flouts efficiency standards.
At the same time, only paltry amounts are being allocated for renewable energy generation.
Government grants householders for solar panels are being used up in an hourdespite the trumpetting of a 20 per cent target for renewables by 2020.
Yet we are currently being inundated by big business with greenwash about their success in reducing their 'carbon footprints' - from the biggest polluters such as oil, gas and mining giants like Shell and BP to the supermarkets and even airlines!
However a recent report from Christian Aid has uncovered their failure to admit the true amount of their carbon emissions
Out of Britain's 100 toplisted companies only 16 are playing by the rules. By failing to include all their operations around the (investment, supply chains etc) at least 40 per cent - or 200m tons - has been concealed. In fact last year environLivingstone's figures for London do not include aviation, which, despite being the fastest growing source of emissions is always excluded from government and business targets
mental analysts Trucost estimated the true figure for these top firms to be between 12 and 15 percent of global emissions. This knocks sideways the government's much-quoted claim that Britain is responsible for only 2 percent and so need not worry too much about its own contribution to global warming.
Given this deception and inaction it is no surprise that carbon emissions in Britain are actually rising
So there has been much support for the Friends of the Earth "Big Ask' campaign for a Climate Change Bill with real teeth. We want statutory cuts of 3 percent each year, to be independently monitored.
Now, however, the government is reneging on its promise of a bill this parliament. All we have so far is a draft, which is unlikely to become law until next year. Its proposals are in any case far too weak, having a target of only 60 per cent by 2050
So we need to step up the campaign for a much tougher Climate Change bill. 6 per cent yearly cuts are actually both necessary and possible.
At the same time many other campaigns are mushrooming around the country. Under public pressure, for instance, local councils are behaviour.
Internationally, a new initiative recently hit the world stage in the form of Al Gore's SOS (Save Our Selves). Eight Live Earth' concerts are planned, incuding in London, the US, Brazil and Antarctica.
As its name suggests, it sees the climate crisis as not just an environmental issue, but a real, existential threat to our futures, especially to the young.
It chimes with the recent I Count campaign which did much to bring young people to the 50,000 strong demo in Tratalgar Square last November.
As one activist put it at the time "We're stuffed if we leave politics to the kind of people interested in it."
All the more reason to keep building these and other campaigns, especially the longstanding Campaign against
We want a binding international treaty, post Kytoto, some would say for 90 per cent ghg cuts by 2030 to avoid catastrophe.
We are targeting one of the biggest polluters Exxon Mobil this Easter.
We also have a two day conference coming up in May, and are planning a big counter demo at the forthcoming G8 summit in June.
We are a movement now with the wind in our sails, fast-growing and absolutely unwilling to accept current inaction by business and governments.
page 19 of the scan
sommislreland Joe Craig The Nothern Assembly elections on March were called by the British government to boost Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Fein, and to open the way to a new powersharing executive between the two parties.
In the first objective it succeeded brilliantly while it is still unclear whether the DUP are ready to enter an administration with their arch enemies before the deadline of 26 March.
In line with a claimed desire to create a 'normal' society Peter Hain said the election was dominated by "bread and butter' issues. It was nothing of the sort.
The electorate responded to the sectarian rules of the game by voting for the two biggest parties that would defend their communal interests.
Far from being an election Sectarianism alive and kicking in elections Waking up to a new nightmare on 'bread and butter' issues it was an election that saw increasing numbers plump for the biggest defenders of sectarian rights.
On the unionist side the crushing of their Ulster Unionist rivals, and humiliation of right wing critics who claimed they were selling out, put Paisley's party to the top of the pile as the largest party in the State, without serious. rivals within unionism.
Sinn Fein also grew and further weakened their SDLP rivals. Commentators are now talking about a two party, not a four party, system.
Significantly the various republican dissidents who stood against Sinn Fein after it announced its support for the police were marginalised, and none of them were even close to being elected.
The outcome was graphically captured in a political cartoon on the front page of the local nationalist paper "The Irish News'.
It showed a jubilant Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness holding aloft a celebrating Ian Paisley complete with an open mouth bearing razor like teeth.
Republican dissidents bitterly denounced Sinn Fein for having sold out everything Irish republicanism stands for. The nationalist electorate said 'we don't care.'
They want the troubles over, and have completely accepted the Sinn Fein argument that a Stormont executive will give Catholics some share of power through which they can achieve equality.
The resistance by the DUP to sharing an administration with Sinn Fein is only seen as confirmation of their illusions. If Paisley doesn't like it, it must be OK.
In fact there is nothing progressive about the prospect of a powersharing executive at Stormont.
It would continue to be controlled by the British, conWhile they agree on the economic agenda the DUP and Sinn Fein will bitterly disagree over the sectarian split of the crumbs left by British rule. firmed by the parties seeking a 'peace dividend' so that they can at least partially mitigate the attacks on workers living standards represented by dramatic rate rises, water charges and privatisation. There was only one real winner emerging from the Assembly elections...
In the previous short-lived Executive the parties kicked off this process that they have ever since claimed to oppose.
They are united on economic policy and particularly in a demand for slashing corporate taxation to the level existing south of the border.
However while they agree on the economic agenda the DUP and Sinn Fein will bitterly disagree over the sectarian split of the crumbs left by British rule.
Peter Robinson of the DUP stated that a powersharing executive would be a battle a day". An executive would leave those responsible for this sectarian battle - the British - out of the picture, and by this very fact exacerbate the bitter rivalry.
For the DUP, even if they eventually plump for some sort of deal, this is only a stepping stone to a return to unrestricted unionist rule.
The prospect of a new powersharing executive has been brought forward by the election, but the prospect of it succeeding in any long term sense has not.
An administration formed out of bitter sectarian rivalry is a nightmare, but unfortunately it looks like it is one that workers will have to go through before they wake up in a cold sweat and determine not to continue SLU live through it.