The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom released ‘Blueprint for a Green Economy’, the Quality of Life Policy Group’s report, suggests that targets of at least 26 per cent cuts by 2020 and at least 80 per cent cuts by 2050, including in aviation and shipping, would be necessary for Britain to play its part in keeping global warming below critical climate tipping points.

The paper also proposes that a carbon committee with accountability to Parliament is needed to increase these targets still further in the light of new scientific evidence.

Of additional interest are the report’s findings on what it terms “perverse subsidies.” The report finds “the estimated public subsidy for fossil fuels is between $150-250 billion per year globally, with subsidies on oil products in non-OECD countries estimated at over $90 billion annually” (Report 391).

The Quality of Life Commission Report furthers states: “the European Environment Agency have produced an analysis of energy subsidies which concluded that for every €1 spent on renewables subsidies, €4 goes to fossil fuels. This ratio is consistent with a report which argues that every year the UK government gives some £6 to £8 in fossil fuel subsidies for every £1 to support clean and renewable energy, and that a typical British taxpayer pays at least £1,000 a year to fund ‘perverse’ subsidies” (Report 391).

David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party and leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom, positions he has occupied since December 2005, had the following to say on the report: “This is a vital issue - we have a responsibility in this generation to make sure we provide a greener and cleaner planet for our children. We cannot go on as we are in terms of the way we run government and live our lives. This report is all about creating incentives for people to help them make greener choices. We are prepared to make tough choices. We have said very clearly that taxes on pollution will go up.”To read the full report, go to: UK Conservative Party Quality of Life Commission Report.

The US House of Representatives missed an important opportunity to end oil aid in a bill [Acrobat pdf] that will “re-authorize” the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) – one of two agencies in the US government that uses taxpayer dollars to provide financing, insurance and guarantees to US businesses wanting to expand their operations in foreign countries.The bill’s report language “discourages” OPIC from providing any assistance “for projects that involve the development, extraction, processing or transportation of crude oil.” It also states that “limited public resources for foreign assistance should focus on the many critical needs of development countries” and “extractive industries have significant access to private capital markets and increasingly do not need OPIC assistance.” While these are important and significant assertions, unfortunately, the report language is non-binding, acting as guidelines to OPIC rather than legal mandates.

This year, the House could have taken an important step to close loopholes in OPIC statute which, despite restrictions on directly financing the surveying and extraction of oil, allow indirect financing of these activities and the provision of any type of support for other oil-related operations. For example, in 2005 alone OPIC provided $580 million in support for oil and gas projects, including direct financing for pipelines. In the past several years, OPIC has used public funds to subsidize the overseas operations of many oil giants such as Exxon, BP and Unocal/Chevron.

The OPIC Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 2798) [Acrobat pdf], passed by the House on Monday and now being debated in the Senate, not only fails to rollback subsidies to the international oil industry, but falls short when it comes to clear directives in other areas:

• While the House bill mandates that OPIC “establish a goal of substantially increasing its support of projects that use, develop, or other-wise promote the use of clean energy technologies” [emphasis added] it fails to clearly define a portfolio target, giving large discretion to OPIC to determine what is meant by a “substantial increase.”

• While the House bill require that OPIC notify Congressional committees 30 days before providing support to a project in the extractive industries, this only applies to projects in which OPIC assistance is valued at $10,000,000 or more. This is a seemingly high threshold.

• While the House bill requires that OPIC “gives preference to” a project in which both the investor and host country implement the internationally recognized Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) principles, it only requires that either the investor or country meet EITI principles “or substantially similar principles and criteria.” As written, such a provision will do little to change the way OPIC currently operates.

It is disappointing that the House OPIC Reauthorization Bill could not make clear commitments around such things as a defined target for lending to renewable energy projects and phasing out support to oil companies which have adequate access to private capital. We can’t fight climate change and invest our public resource in clean, renewable energy technologies while, as the same time, continuing to subsidize the oil industry. While the US must carry the responsibility for lowering its own emissions, our public foreign assistance should be geared towards helping impoverished countries establish renewable energy infrastructure rather than following the current policy and creating an oil-based infrastructure that will result in these developing countries producing harmful greenhouse gases.

• See the entire bill: H.R. 2798 Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2007. [Acrobat pdf] (See the end of the summary of Section 8, on page 20, for the language that “discourages” OPIC investment in oil operations.)

• See an IPS article on the bill: OPIC Extension Tied to Terror and Environment.

The Fourth of July was cool and rainy in Vermont, as it seems to be with surprising regularity. I suppose that’s why my town sets off its fireworks on the evening of July 3^rd, which was perfect for pyrotechnics this year.

Fireworks finished, I had all day Wednesday to contemplate this year’s version of American liberty. The Fourth of July 1776 was a profound date, because it meant the end of the colonists’ rebellion and the beginning of the American nation. Until that date, the dispute between the British government and its American subjects - from massacres and “tea parties” in Boston to pitched battles in New England and the Carolinas – had been a violent form of citizens petitioning their government.

The Continental Congress wanted the British Parliament to grant the colonies more autonomy in deciding affairs here on the ground, rather than dictating events from London and of course, there was the matter of taxes. America was a land rich in resources, but depended on England for material goods. In a large part, our rebellion was about money.

On July 4^th 1776, the rebellion became revolution. In the previous year, the colonists realized America didn’t need England. With our resources and our people, we were more than capable of determining our own fate. If England didn’t want our trade; we could just as easily trade with the French, the Dutch and the Spanish. Although the British army secured our borders, particularly our frontier, with garrisoned outposts, those troops were increasingly supplanted by soldiers from the Continental Army, people like Colonel George Washington, who requested a commission in the regular British Army, but was turned down.

Many of the actual British troops were clustered in New York and Boston, causing resentment among the locals, especially when they were forced to lodge soldiers in their homes. The behavior of the British regulars toward colonists was often boorish, sometimes criminal.

Given all this, the Declaration of Independence was not merely a statement of political philosophy, it was a reflection of the situation on ground by a people who had had enough and realized they didn’t have to be bullied anymore.

In Iraq (you had to see this coming), the United States is pressing the legislature to pass an oil law. Getting this law on the books is one of the famous “benchmarks” on the road to the withdrawal of American troops. It is the most important benchmark for George Bush, Dick Cheney and their oil company cronies. The oil law the US is trying to force on Iraq would ensure foreign oil companies have permanent access to Iraq’s oil fields. That’s what the invasion and occupation were about: oil. The US isn’t going to let it slip away.

Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson admitted this the other day, creating a media storm as Prime Minister John Howard struggled vainly to get the lid back on Pandora’s box.

The Iraqi Parliament, realizing today what the Continental Congress realized 231 years ago, is in no hurry to pass the US-dictated oil law. A version of the law was passed by the cabinet, with support of 13 out of 37 ministers. I know, 13 of 37 is a minority, but substantial numbers of ministers from both Shi’ite and Sunni blocs have been boycotting cabinet meetings. Thirteen votes represented a majority of those present. The law still has to be passed by the legislature as a whole, an event still a long way off, even though many US media outlets reported earlier this week that the law had actually been passed.

Mr. Bush spent much of his holiday on the phone to Iraq, attempting to coax politicians of various political stripes to pass his law. He can’t bother to rouse himself to speak to members of Congress about immigration or health care or restoring the Gulf Coast, but when there’s oil to be had or a crony to be pardoned, Gorge Bush is all action.

An amendment has been offered by legislators allied with Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr which, while keeping the door open to foreign oil companies, would exclude companies from nations that are keeping armed forces in Iraq. That amendment will almost certainly be dropped, but the “coalition” will look pretty foolish in the meantime, denying that it’s about the oil.

On the other side of the civil war, a Sunni cleric has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, forbidding Sunni legislators from approving the US version of the oil law

Finally, something both sides can agree on.

© Mark Floegel, 2007