Feed aggregator
Panama launches emissions reporting platform as national carbon market takes form
US DFC backs $1 bln BTG Pactual-led Latin American reforestation effort with $50 mln investment
Canada’s planned landfill methane reduction regulation to cut 107 MtCO2e from 2025-40, reduce offset potential
Rising risks of climate disasters mean some communities will need to move – we need a national conversation about relocation now
Google data centres push emissions nearly 50% higher than 2019 levels as AI footprint grows
Verra’s new REDD methodology could leave projects issuing no voluntary carbon credits, warns assessement body
The Guardian view on Britain’s green future: where was the debate? | Editorial
The climate emergency should have been a more prominent theme during an underwhelming election campaign
For all the many televised encounters between party leaders, one huge subject has largely flown under the radar during this underwhelming election campaign. In 2019, at a time when the Brexit crisis had overwhelmed national politics, Channel 4 nevertheless devoted an entire pre-election debate to the climate emergency. Boris Johnson didn’t turn up. But, sensing the mood of the times, as prime minister he was soon committing to a “green industrial revolution”. Climate action was high-profile and it mattered.
Contrast that with last week’s final leaders’ debate between Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer. None of the questions selected from the audience addressed the environment. Aside from one attempt by Mr Sunak to suggest that Labour’s green plans will lead to higher taxes – feeding into the Conservative party’s wider attack strategy – both leaders focused their energy and political capital elsewhere. It has been much the same throughout the campaign. Economists, industrial leaders and environmental campaigners are united in their desire for more proactive green government. But the politics has become difficult.
Continue reading...ACR unveils updates to US IFM carbon offset protocol aimed at baseline precision
DATA DIVE: How the UK Conservatives slipped on net zero
EU net zero transition speeds up but still too slow, finds annual assessment
CEO of SBTi to step down
Germany’s coal phaseout auction sets an example for cost-effective early retirements, study finds
Swedish biogenic CCS project to begin this year thanks to EU-approved aid
Labour is putting its plans for Britain in the hands of private finance. It could end badly | Daniela Gabor
Handing vital infrastructure to private investment companies will generate windfalls for investors and leave the rest of us worse off. We need a better plan
- Daniela Gabor is professor of economics and macrofinance at UWE Bristol
The Labour party has a plan for returning to power: it will get BlackRock to rebuild Britain. Its reasoning is straightforward. A cash-strapped government that wants to avoid tax increases or austerity has no choice but to partner with big finance, attracting private investment to rebuild the infrastructure that is crumbling after years of Tory underinvestment. Labour has already done the arithmetic: to mobilise £3 of private capital from institutional investors, you need to offer them £1 in public subsidies. But every time you hear Labour announce such an infrastructure partnership, think of the hidden politics. BlackRock will privatise Britain – our housing, education, health, nature and green energy – with our taxpayer money as sweetener.
BlackRock has long peddled the idea of public-private partnerships for infrastructure, climate and development. Yet its political momentum has recently accelerated. When its chair, Larry Fink, the world’s most powerful financier, sat with world leaders at the G7 summit last month, he promised the following: rich countries need growth, infrastructure investment can deliver that growth, but public debt is too high for the state alone to invest the estimated $75tn (£59tn) necessary by 2040. Trillions, however, are available to asset managers who look after our pensions and insurance contributions (BlackRock, the largest of these firms, manages about $10tn, as a shrinking welfare state pushes us – future pensioners – into its arms).
Daniela Gabor is professor of economics and macrofinance at UWE Bristol
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Continue reading...EU clears €32 bln aid for energy-intensive companies in Germany
Sustainability-linked bonds increasingly tied to biodiversity, UNDP says
Ruling paves way for businesses and public to sue water firms over sewage
Decision by supreme court means water companies could be sued for damage caused by dumping of human waste
Water companies could face a spate of legal challenges by people and businesses affected by sewage pollution after a ruling that United Utilities could be sued by a private company for damage caused by the dumping of human waste.
Lawyers said it was a “watershed moment” as the courts had previously ruled that penalties for water companies were a matter for the regulator, and companies could not sue firms for damage caused to their property by sewage pollution.
Continue reading...