It is welcome news that Barnet Council has finally decided to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But what unambitious targets! I wouldn't even call them half-hearted - they are quarter-hearted at best.
More than 200 local authorities are already implementing energy savings projects and some have already achieved much more than the 5 pct cut in household consumption and 10 pct per organisation which Barnet is giving itself until 2012 to reach. Woking, for instance, has reduced the release of carbon dioxide by 17 pct across the whole borough as well as slashing the council's own contribution by 70 pct.
Why is Barnet Council not leading by example by installing solar panels and wind turbines at its own sites? For instance, Barnet House and the North London Business Park buildings would seem ideal for solar panels.
Actually, I can guess the answer to that question - I expect certain members of the Conservative administration are still opposed to the idea. Earlier this year Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the plan for a wind turbine at Frith Manor School. Perhaps he would rather have a nuclear power station on Totteridge fields?
Personally, I find wind turbines quite pleasing to look at. The council can build one next to my allotment any time it likes.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is becoming increasingly urgent, as shown by research published last week demonstrating that carbon dioxide levels in the world's atmosphere are rising faster than anyone has forecast.
Cutting consumption of fossil fuels is something we all should be doing for other reasons too, notably to conserve the world's rapidly depleting resources.
And people like Mr Coleman should bear in mind that lowering use of energy saves money. Woking Council saved £1 million over 10 years thanks to its CO2 reduction project.
Sunday 18 November 2007
Wednesday 3 October 2007
Norway to build world's first osmotic power plant
Here are details of yet another better alternative to building new nuclear power stations:
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Monday 1 October 2007
Renewable energy better than nuclear power
My 11 reasons why the government should invest money in wind, soar and marine power rather than new nuclear power plants:
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
Tuesday 7 August 2007
Frith Manor wind turbine
News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
Saturday 30 June 2007
Keep ticket offices open at tube stations
Please campaign against the proposal by Transport for London to completely close the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East stations on the Northern Line as part of the closure of 40 ticket offices across London.
Any savings will be outweighed by a large fall in revenues from those stations, I believe. In addition, difficulties in buying a ticket are likely to cause many people to switch to alternative travel methods, while a heightened feeling of insecurity when no staff are around may put people off travelling by Underground, they say.
Revenues will fall at the three local stations because some people will be deterred from using the Northern Line and others will take advantage of the lack of supervision to travel without paying.
Around 40 pct of underground travellers still use paper tickets, according to TfL's own figures, and many of these are tourists and other infrequent travellers who are quite likely to need assistance.
In any case, TfL's claim that ticket offices are not needed at the three stations because most people use Oyster cards does not hold water, since the offices are not just used by people buying traditional paper tickets. Even Oyster users will need the ticket office from time to time, when they are having problems with the machine or if they have lost their card and need a replacement.
If, as TfL insists, staff will be redeployed elsewhere on the three stations, there is no reason why duty employees should not open up the ticket office as and when requested by travellers. Instead, even before the official closure date, staff are barred from selling tickets through the window outside the already-restricted opening hours.
The ticket office is the obvious place for anyone to go to if they want help with buying a ticket or need assistance reaching the platforms because of infirmity or disability. Similarly, if someone sees something suspicious, feels threatened or is actually being threatened or attacked, he or she will receive help much more quickly if there is someone visible at the station to appeal to, rather than use the communications devices which are being installed on local stations.
"The closure of the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East is likely to have a gradual and cumulative effect on the number of people using those stations. People who have a bad experience once may decide not to use the tube on future occasions when they might otherwise have done so," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green Party speaker on the environment.
For more detailts or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
To make your own protest contact:
Customer Service Centre
London Underground
55 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BD
tel: 0845 330 9880
Wednesday 20 June 2007
Set 20 mph limit near homes
All residential streets should have a 20 mph speed limit, along the lines of the plan agreed by Portsmouth City Council.
The limit could be a new safety measure or could be a replacement where road humps or other traffic calming installations have been removed.
Emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances are already exempt from speed limits so their journeys would not be hampered in any way.
Another advantage of a 20 mph limit is that much less petrol is needed to drive at a steady 20 than to keep slowing and accelerating, as many drivers do on roads with speed humps.
At a time when many children are being prevented from playing outside because their parents fear the potenial dangers, we should consider anything which can make the streets safer for our children to enjoy fresh air and get much-needed exercise.
The limit could be a new safety measure or could be a replacement where road humps or other traffic calming installations have been removed.
Emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances are already exempt from speed limits so their journeys would not be hampered in any way.
Another advantage of a 20 mph limit is that much less petrol is needed to drive at a steady 20 than to keep slowing and accelerating, as many drivers do on roads with speed humps.
At a time when many children are being prevented from playing outside because their parents fear the potenial dangers, we should consider anything which can make the streets safer for our children to enjoy fresh air and get much-needed exercise.
Wednesday 4 April 2007
Keep your beer miles low
Last Thursday I had a excellent pint of Adnams Bitter in the Cherry Tree in Woodbridge, Suffolk. I followed it with a delicious pint of Broadside and a superb pint of Oyster Stout, a rare treat. However, I kept off the Explorer. Why? Beer miles.
Explorer is made with imported hops - that is one of the marketing points. Evidence of climate change is increasing daily and cask ale brewers should be highlighting the fact that their beers involve less transport and therefore cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions than imported lagers or than beers made in Britain with imported ingredients.
There is much talk about the need to insulate your home and everyone is conscious of the environmental impact of cars and aeroplanes, but we should also take note that around one third of the average person's carbon footprint comes from the food and drink that he or she consumes. To help reduce our personal contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere we should all eat and drink only British products as far as possible.
Drink real ale to (help) save the planet!
Explorer is made with imported hops - that is one of the marketing points. Evidence of climate change is increasing daily and cask ale brewers should be highlighting the fact that their beers involve less transport and therefore cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions than imported lagers or than beers made in Britain with imported ingredients.
There is much talk about the need to insulate your home and everyone is conscious of the environmental impact of cars and aeroplanes, but we should also take note that around one third of the average person's carbon footprint comes from the food and drink that he or she consumes. To help reduce our personal contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere we should all eat and drink only British products as far as possible.
Drink real ale to (help) save the planet!
Wednesday 28 March 2007
Greens see red over Brown
Barnet Green party members say that Chancellor Gordon Brown's plan to increase tax on the most polluting cars to 400 pounds next April is nothing like enough to deter the owners of the gaz guzzlers which throng Barnet's roads.
When local people are paying upwards of 50,000 pounds for one of these environmentally-extremely-unfriendly vehicles, an extra 400 pounds for tax is hardly likely to make them think again.
A survey last year showed that 8,716 Band G vehicles were sold to Barnet residents in the five years to 2006, more than than to residents of any other London borough. "Never mind 400 pounds, the tax needs to be 4X400 pounds if it is to prompt a reduction in the number of these huge and menacing cars on our local roads," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green party speaker on transport.
For more details or to comment contact: andrewnewby1@gmail.com
When local people are paying upwards of 50,000 pounds for one of these environmentally-extremely-unfriendly vehicles, an extra 400 pounds for tax is hardly likely to make them think again.
A survey last year showed that 8,716 Band G vehicles were sold to Barnet residents in the five years to 2006, more than than to residents of any other London borough. "Never mind 400 pounds, the tax needs to be 4X400 pounds if it is to prompt a reduction in the number of these huge and menacing cars on our local roads," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green party speaker on transport.
For more details or to comment contact: andrewnewby1@gmail.com
Wednesday 7 February 2007
Brent Cross plan needs improvement, say Greens
Barnet Green Party is calling for major improvements to the developers' proposals for the Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration Area.
The party has submitted these recommendations in response to the developers' consultation exercise:
1. All commercial and residential buildings should be carbon neutral. Micro-generation projects should be included in both residential and commercial developments so that as little electricity and gas as possible should be drawn from the grid system. The maximum possible energy conservation measures should be included.
Carbon neutral buildings will be more expensive to construct but will be considerably cheaper to occupy.
2. The improved bus station and the new bus station are welcome. Access for pedestrians, cyclists and buses should be prioritised over cars. Customers of Brent Cross should be encouraged to go there by foot, cycle, bus or train. The new railway station needs to be easily accessible and convenient for local people and shoppers.
Thought should be given to improving pedestrian and cycling access from adjoining residential and neighbourhood shopping areas, and also to pedestrian access from Brent Cross tube station to the shopping centre, which is almost impossible at the moment. The best solution would be a closer tube station with direct pedestrian access.
3. Nothing should be done that might have a harmful impact on existing neighbourhood shopping centres. Panels should be set up inside Brent Cross shopping centre promoting nearby shopping centres and giving directions to services which are available at those centres and not at Brent Cross, eg banks, post offices, libraries, internet cafes, public houses.
4. The parks and open spaces should be laid out in the way described, either before or at least at the same time as any other work begins on the development. They must not be delayed or forgotten about. There is a chance to enhance the Brent river as it passes through the development area and the upgrade must be carried out in such a way as to be attractive to people and beneficial to wildlife. A nature reserve should be set aside where plants, birds and animals can live undisturbed.
5. New allotments should be provided, for occupants of the new residential developments. The allotment site should be big enough to have a trading hut and to be self-managed by a volunteer committee.
For further details or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
To find out more about the developers' plans go to: http://www.brentcrosscricklewood.com/
The party has submitted these recommendations in response to the developers' consultation exercise:
1. All commercial and residential buildings should be carbon neutral. Micro-generation projects should be included in both residential and commercial developments so that as little electricity and gas as possible should be drawn from the grid system. The maximum possible energy conservation measures should be included.
Carbon neutral buildings will be more expensive to construct but will be considerably cheaper to occupy.
2. The improved bus station and the new bus station are welcome. Access for pedestrians, cyclists and buses should be prioritised over cars. Customers of Brent Cross should be encouraged to go there by foot, cycle, bus or train. The new railway station needs to be easily accessible and convenient for local people and shoppers.
Thought should be given to improving pedestrian and cycling access from adjoining residential and neighbourhood shopping areas, and also to pedestrian access from Brent Cross tube station to the shopping centre, which is almost impossible at the moment. The best solution would be a closer tube station with direct pedestrian access.
3. Nothing should be done that might have a harmful impact on existing neighbourhood shopping centres. Panels should be set up inside Brent Cross shopping centre promoting nearby shopping centres and giving directions to services which are available at those centres and not at Brent Cross, eg banks, post offices, libraries, internet cafes, public houses.
4. The parks and open spaces should be laid out in the way described, either before or at least at the same time as any other work begins on the development. They must not be delayed or forgotten about. There is a chance to enhance the Brent river as it passes through the development area and the upgrade must be carried out in such a way as to be attractive to people and beneficial to wildlife. A nature reserve should be set aside where plants, birds and animals can live undisturbed.
5. New allotments should be provided, for occupants of the new residential developments. The allotment site should be big enough to have a trading hut and to be self-managed by a volunteer committee.
For further details or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
To find out more about the developers' plans go to: http://www.brentcrosscricklewoo
Tuesday 6 February 2007
What US spending on Iraq war would have bought
The New York Times says the money spent by the US government on the war in Iraq would have paid for universal healthcare in the US, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the country, immunisation for children round the world against a host of diseases, and still leave about half of the money left over.
Bush increasing defence spending, cutting welfare
In the US federal budget for the year to September 2008, George W Bush is proposing to an increase of 49 billion dollars or 11.3 per cent in the defence budget, to 481.4 billion dollars excluding the cost of the occupation of Iraq and the broad war on terror.
Including Iraq and the war in terror, the president is asking for a total of 716.5 billion dollars for defence in the coming financial year, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Given that the US already spends a greater proportion of national income on defence than any other country, next year's US defence budget therefore includes at least 284.1 billion dollars in unnecessary spending on defence.
In the same budget, Bush wants to slash 95.9 billion dollars from major benefit programs including Medicare, the federal healthcare programme for the elderly and disabled.
Needless to say, Bush want to continue with tax cuts for the wealthy which he introduced at the start of his presidency.
Monday 5 February 2007
Barnet Council's unethical investments
Barnet Green Party is calling on Barnet Council's pension fund to scrap its immoral investment policy and to adopt the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.
The council stated last year that it holds 724,575 shares in BAE Systems, the weapons manufacturer which has recently been the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office in relation to alleged bribery.
Year-end figures show that the fund's holding of BAE shares brought a poorer return in 2006 than if the money had been put into ethical investments. Growth in the FTSE4Good Global 100 index, a leading tracker of ethical investments, was much greater in the past 12 months than the rise in BAE shares.
"Barnet Council's previous excuse was that the pension fund has to achieve the best possible investment returns for its members. These figures show that investing in BAE makes poor investment sense as well as being immoral," says Gardi Vaswani, chair of Barnet Green Party.
BAE stock ended the year 11 pct higher than on 31st December 2005, as institutional investors cynically welcomed the government's decision to order the SFA to end its bribery inquiries.
However, the FTSE4Good Global 100 index did much better, surging nearly 20 pct during 2006, justly rewarding people who chose to invest in a principled way. Some other measures of ethical investment even outshone the FTSE4Good Global index, depending on the method of calculation. The Dow Jones EURO STOXX Sustainability 40 has soared more than 26 pct in the past year.
The FTSE4Good Global Index achieved a similar outperformance against the FTSE 100 index of leading UK shares, which gained about 10 pct in 2006. The more narrowly-focussed FTSE4Good UK index matched the FTSE 100's gain, despite the limited number of companies in the UK from which the ethical index's components can be selected.
The UK has trailed behind other European countries in developing ethically acceptable and environmentally friendly industries, undermined by attitudes such as that of the Barnet Council pension fund. This means that Britain is lagging behind in obtaining the economic benefits that such industries are bringing to more forward-looking countries, both in terms of job creation and return on investment.
For instance, Denmark is home to Vestas Wind Systems, the world's biggest manfacturer of wind turbines. Vestas employs 11,900 people and has seen its share price more than double in 2006, to 229 euros from 104.5 .
If Barnet Council's pension fund adopted a more ethical policy, such as by following the UN guidelines, it could achieve a double benefit of improving the fund's investment returns and, if it invested in appropriate UK companies, it could help encourage faster growth in ethical business sectors in this country.
The introduction of the guidelines also deals with the council's previous concern that there was no standard set of ethical investment rules which it could follow. The BBC is among organisations which have adopted the UN rules, so there is no reason why another public body such as Barnet Council should not do the same.
The council stated last year that it holds 724,575 shares in BAE Systems, the weapons manufacturer which has recently been the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office in relation to alleged bribery.
Year-end figures show that the fund's holding of BAE shares brought a poorer return in 2006 than if the money had been put into ethical investments. Growth in the FTSE4Good Global 100 index, a leading tracker of ethical investments, was much greater in the past 12 months than the rise in BAE shares.
"Barnet Council's previous excuse was that the pension fund has to achieve the best possible investment returns for its members. These figures show that investing in BAE makes poor investment sense as well as being immoral," says Gardi Vaswani, chair of Barnet Green Party.
BAE stock ended the year 11 pct higher than on 31st December 2005, as institutional investors cynically welcomed the government's decision to order the SFA to end its bribery inquiries.
However, the FTSE4Good Global 100 index did much better, surging nearly 20 pct during 2006, justly rewarding people who chose to invest in a principled way. Some other measures of ethical investment even outshone the FTSE4Good Global index, depending on the method of calculation. The Dow Jones EURO STOXX Sustainability 40 has soared more than 26 pct in the past year.
The FTSE4Good Global Index achieved a similar outperformance against the FTSE 100 index of leading UK shares, which gained about 10 pct in 2006. The more narrowly-focussed FTSE4Good UK index matched the FTSE 100's gain, despite the limited number of companies in the UK from which the ethical index's components can be selected.
The UK has trailed behind other European countries in developing ethically acceptable and environmentally friendly industries, undermined by attitudes such as that of the Barnet Council pension fund. This means that Britain is lagging behind in obtaining the economic benefits that such industries are bringing to more forward-looking countries, both in terms of job creation and return on investment.
For instance, Denmark is home to Vestas Wind Systems, the world's biggest manfacturer of wind turbines. Vestas employs 11,900 people and has seen its share price more than double in 2006, to 229 euros from 104.5 .
If Barnet Council's pension fund adopted a more ethical policy, such as by following the UN guidelines, it could achieve a double benefit of improving the fund's investment returns and, if it invested in appropriate UK companies, it could help encourage faster growth in ethical business sectors in this country.
The introduction of the guidelines also deals with the council's previous concern that there was no standard set of ethical investment rules which it could follow. The BBC is among organisations which have adopted the UN rules, so there is no reason why another public body such as Barnet Council should not do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)