A selection of news stories

I've been away for a couple of weeks, during which there have been some interesting stories in the news. So, in no particular order...

Six Greenpeace activists who caused £30,000 of damage to the coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth were found not guilty by a jury after expert evidence was presented that they were acting to present much greater damage from climate change. Twelve ordinary members of the public found the evidence convincing and brought in a historic 'not guilty' verdict. This is the first case where preventing property damage from climate change has been used as part of a 'lawful excuse' defence in Crown Court.

Some research reported in the Guardian found that those people who were most aware of climate change were actually doing the most damage to the planet by flying further and more often. There is clearly a massive gap in understanding here, since so many people think that recycling is a sufficient 'green' compensation for taking long-haul flights.

Mark Lynas, a respected environmentalist, has just come out in favour of nuclear power as part of the solution to climate change. The heated discussion on his blog centres around two issues, it seems. Firstly, how great a practical contribution nuclear power can make to cutting carbon emissions, and secondly, the true size of the risks that nuclear power presents. The second is a much more difficult question to resolve, since there are two elements to risk: how likely something is, and how bad the impact would be if it did happen. While I'm not in a position to draw authoritative conclusions on either of these questions (at least not without a lot more reading!) I strongly agree with Mark Lynas that the evidence should be examined afresh. When faced with the massive threat of climate change, the risk from nuclear power may turn out to be worth taking. On the other hand, nuclear power may prove to be an expensive distraction from renewables.

Finally scientists have reported methane being released from frozen seabeds in Siberia. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it has long been feared that if it is released as the permafrost warms up, this could cause runaway global warming. No one knows yet exactly what the new evidence means, but it is at the least a timely reminder of urgency.

Boris Johnson, eco-warrior

Boris Johnson, as Mayor of London, has published a plan on adapting to climate change. All very worthy and necessary in itself, but no substitute for cutting emissions. As the metaphorical car of climate change careers towards the cliff, the brakes are clearly more important than the airbag.

So, what news of Ken's climate change action plan, published last year? Boris has kept the target to cut London's carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent cut (based on 1990 levels) by 2025. However, in the list of his environmental priorities as Mayor, this target appears as just one item in the list, alongside banning bottled water at GLA meetings, lobbying for a ban on single use plastic bags, and encouraging more hybrid buses. I'm not saying these are bad things. But the 2025 target will be achieved only if it is given a much higher priority than seems to be the case.

How green is Boris? On the positive side, he opposes a third runway at Heathrow, but the evidence suggests this is not for climate change reasons, since he endorses a 50 per cent increase in flights from London city airport. He has also been talking about the possibility of a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Low carbon zones have been announced to pioneer home insulation, locally generated renewable energy schemes, etc., but he has scrapped plans to introduce a climate change-related congestion charge and re-opened the consultation on the western extension to the congestion charge zone. Aside from climate change, if he fails to cut congestion further in London, the government may be fined for breaching air quality rules.

In an article in February 2006, he described climate change as 'a growing world religion', and in his earlier book 'Lend me your ears', stated that when George Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocol 'he is doing what is right not just for America but for the world'. However, in an interview in the Guardian last week, he claims to have been convinced by the 2006 Stern Review, saying 'When the facts change, you change your mind'. A genuine conversion, or simply someone saying what is politically desirable? Definitely a case where actions will speak louder than words.