Don't let them relax uranium transport rules!

About 20 million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are transported around the world annually on public road, railways and ships.

With the comeback of nuclear power, there is an increasing demand for transportation of radioactive materials.

Wisely, regulations have been in place to strictly control their movement. But the industry is now complaining of bottlenecks and delays.

This is compounded by the fact that, sensibly, fewer and fewer transporters want to deal with the hazardous materials. Moeller Maersk, the world's largest container shipping line measured on vessel capacity, adopted a policy of not shipping radioactive materials in April 2007.

"It is a very complex problem," said Bernard Monot, external relations vice president at the logistics department of the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors, Areva.

"The shippers complain about the port authorities, who in turn hold the shipping lines responsible and everybody accuses heavy regulations," he says.

So they want the rules cut.

For example in Holland, "It takes around six weeks to receive a permit," according to Pyter Hiemstra, spokesman for SenterNovem, the agency handling permits on behalf of the Dutch Department of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment.

He said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had asked countries to speed this up.

"What we would be looking for is for radioactive to be accepted for transit permission normally with 24 to 48 hours notice," said John Leach, General Manager for Dangerous Cargo, Special Cargo Management at Moeller Maersk.

The Low Carbon Kid argues hat the last thing we need is a relaxing of rule around the transport of radioactive materials. The world is a dangerous enough place as it is.

It is governments and local authorities and port authorities who control these rules. Write to your MP and ask them not to let these rules be relaxed.

Stop Arctic Oil and Gas

Arctic Oil & Gas Corp. is an oil exploration venture company that has filed for the exclusive exploitation, development, marketing and extraction rights to the oil and gas resources of the seafloor and subsurface contained within the ”Arctic Claims“.

A preliminary assessment by the US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests the Arctic seabed may hold up to a quarter of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves.

But the planet’s ecosystem could not absorb without radical change the release of the greenhouse gases their burning would release, nor the seabed’s ecosystem survive the mining.

It is madness and craziness beyond belief to exploit this resource.

It is absolutely vital that the world agree, as it did fifty years ago with Antarctica, to set aside a large percentage of the world’s surface as inviolable conservation areas, and it must be made financially worthwhile by their host nations to do so, along the lines of the agreement to pay countries with rainforests not to chop them down in return for carbon credits, in the post-2012 climate negotiations.

But this company does not care about this. Its email to me asked me to invest in the chance to make trillions of dollars from exploiting "the last frontier". It boasted greedily of how the area has more promise than Iraq.

An Exclusive Rights Claim to the Hydrocarbon Resources of the Arctic Oceans Commons was formally lodged by the Company and its partners with the United Nations and the five Arctic countries on May 9th 2006.

The Company intends to operate as the ”lead manager“ tasked to create a multinational joint venture consortium of major oil companies, whose technology and managerial expertise will be vital to recovering the oil and gas from the harsh, deep waters of the Arctic in an environmentally safe manner.

Its contact details are here:

Corporate Address:
Arctic Oil and Gas Corp.
8350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Investors and Press phone: 702.953.9688
Corporate phone: 323.556.0643
Email: ir@arcticoag.com

The company is obviously aware of the "sensitive" nature of its activities. Reading its policy on "corporate governance" is illuminating:

Arctic Oil & Gas Corp. is also committed to the highest possible standards of openness, honesty and accountability. In line with that commitment, we expect employees and others that we deal with who have serious concerns about any aspect of the company‘s work to come forward and voice those concerns.

Employees are often the first to realize that there may be something seriously wrong within the company. However, they may decide not to express their concerns because they feel that speaking up would be disloyal to their colleagues or to the company.

They may also fear harassment or victimization. In these circumstances, they may feel it would be easier to ignore the concern rather than report what may just be a suspicion of malpractice.

For this reason, the company has instituted a Whistle Blowing Policy is that is intended to encourage and enable employees to raise serious concerns within the company rather than overlooking a problem or seeking a resolution of the problem outside the company.

Then, presumably, they can be silenced.

Sustainable war

It's nice to know that even the Ministry of Defence is going green, in the battle against climate change.

Derek Twigg of the MoD told Fraser Kemp on Monday, in Parliamentary Questions, all about the measures they are taking... "improving building energy management and energy efficiency... working with the Carbon Trust ... embedding pro-rata energy efficiency targets into service delivery agreements ... trying to procure energy-efficient vehicles and offset emissions from ministerial flights."

And they will "develop and implement a carbon neutrality strategy for the MOD office estate..." etc. etc.

One day, perhaps, all wars will be carbon neutralised and solar-powered. Just like the old days.

So that's alright then.

Fire at nuclear plant put out

A fire started at Vattenfall Europe's currently closed Kruemmel nuclear plant in northern German but was quickly put out by the plant's own fire brigade on Monday, the operator and local government said [report from Reuters].

No radioactive substances had been released and all relevant authorities had been informed, Vattenfall said in a statement.

The 1,402 megawatt plant, which is jointly operated by the Swedish/German utility Vattanfall utility group and by Germany's E.ON has been closed since June 28, 2007 when a fire at a tranformer substation caused a short circuit.

The Social Affairs Ministry in the northern state of Schleswig Holstein, which supervises nuclear safety, said the incident took place around 0700 GMT and was resolved shortly after 0800 GMT.

The internal fire brigade had dealt with the fire so there had been no need to involve public fire fighters, it said. There were no injuries.

Vattenfall confirmed the details in a statement, saying there had been a smouldering fire at a ventilation system.

Germany is in the process of phasing out nuclear power by 2020 under plans agreed by the previous coalition of Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens.

The plans are being contested by the conservative parties CDU/CSU, which are currently in a coalition government with the SPD. Each safety-related incident is helping to weaken their arguments and reignite fears over the safety of the technology.

A statement from the ministry said the cause of the fire had not yet been determined but its experts were investigating at the site.

The 24-year old Kruemmel reactor is about 20 km (12.43 miles) southeast of Hamburg on the River Elbe.

Adjacent Brunsbuettel, another nuclear plant operated jointly by Vattenfall and E.ON, with 806 megawatts of capacity, also remains shut since the incidents last summer.

Environmental organisation Greenpeace called for the permanent closure of the two plants.

"The latest fire at Kruemmel shows that reactors cannot be operated safely," it said in a statement, adding that power markets were managing without the supply.

Utilities say they need to prolong nuclear operations to win time to meet increasingly ambitious goals for curbing emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide.

What about the waste?

The Energy Bill has no clear statement on the waste disposal regime that will be necessary for new build nuclear.

The problem is underscored by a new National Audit Office report on the costs of cleaning up waste from Britain's first civil nuclear power programme, which it says "are still rising and uncertainties abound". It says the current £73bn cost of decommissioning the 19 existing nuclear sites over the next century is 18% above initial estimates, and the costs of even near-term actions are still rising when they should have stabilised.

CoRWM, the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, said in 2006 nuclear waste, which remains toxic for centuries, should be kept forever in a specially built safe storage facility deep underground. But while the government pointed to this as the solution to waste from any new plants, CoRWM said it only meant this solution to apply to waste from Britain's old military nuclear programme dating back to the 1950s, so called legacy waste.

So each company wishing to invest in nuclear power will have to submit a 'funded decommissioning programm' to the Secretary of State for BERR's approval. This will lay out how hazardous material will be treated, stored, transported and disposed of 'during the operation of a nuclear installation'.

The Government has asked for communities to volunteer to have nuclear waste stored in its location, but none have been forthcoming so far. However, an agreement between Copeland, Cumbria county council and the government has been made to set up a “community fund” in return for allowing the continued operation and expansion of a low-level waste repository, where lightly contaminated material such as clothing is stored.

The government will put £10m ($19m, €13m) into the fund as well as £1.5m for each year the repository is operating - the first such arrangement in the UK, after 18 months of talks. Much bigger sums and tougher negotiations would be involved before any community agreed to host a long-term deep-level waste dump.

Yet the government has said taxpayers will not foot the bill for the storage of waste from new nuclear build. So how are we to trust such statements?

The EU's 2020 targets for emissions and renewables

The EU has set a target of a 20% cut from 2005 levels in the continent's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, potentially rising to 30% in the event of a global agreement.

Total EU industrial emissions in 2020 will be capped at 21% below 2005 levels. This means that 20% of all energy consumption - for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport - in the 25 states must be derived from renewable sources by that date.

In addition up to 12 carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects will be supported and gases capotured would be credited as not emitted under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The ETS itself will be modified to establish a central cap on emissions rather than the current system of Member States setting emissions caps for their own economies. Furthermore:

• two new gases (nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons) will be included
• road transport and shipping remain excluded, although the latter is likely to be included later
• agriculture and forestry are also left out because it's hard to measure their emissions
• smaller installations, emitting below 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, will be able to opt out from the ETS, provided they institute alternative reduction measures. 

For the UK, the Commission proposes:
• a 16% reduction in UK emissions from sectors not covered by the EU ETS by 2020 from 2005 levels
• 15% of all UK energy to be renewable by 2020
• 10% of road transport fuels to come from renewable sources, as long as they are produced sustainably.

Business Secretary John Hutton said most of the new renewable electricity would come from the fact that "the UK is already scoping a vast expansion of wind energy offshore and tidal power on the Severn". Transport Minister Ruth Kelly welcomed the proposal of sustainability criteria for biofuels.

But Greenpeace said "The EU target for biofuels is a mistake. Biomass is more efficiently used for electricity and heat production rather than to fuel high-consumption cars".

Allocation of credits

Campaigners did welcome the fact that power generators will, from 2013, have to pay for their ETS credits, rather than get windfall profits from being given them as at present, but criticised the loopholes given to high energy users - the steel, aluminium and cement industries - after fierce lobbying.

Currently, 90% of carbon emission allowances are given free to industrial installations, but by 2013 it is estimated that around 60% will be auctioned. The text adds that "full auctioning should be the rule from 2013 onwards for the power sector", which is expected to lead to a 10-15% rise in electricity prices. In other sectors, free allocations will gradually be completely phased out on an annual basis between 2013 and 2020.

However, certain energy-intensive sectors could continue to get all their allowances for free in the long term if the Commission determines that otherwise facilities would relocate to countries with less stringent climate protection laws. The EC says these sectors "are yet to be determined".

Commission President José Manuel Barroso said, "There is no point in Europe being tough if it just means production shifting to countries allowing a free-for-all on emissions. An international agreement is the best way to tackle this." 

Assuming a global climate change deal is reached, member states will continue to be able to meet part of their target by financing emission reduction projects in countries outside the EU, up to a limit of about a quarter of total reduction. CDM administrators have complained this will mean a reduction in projects.

"a very small effort

WWF observed that "The 20% target is not even in line with the latest Bali agreement - that developed countries should cut emissions by 25-40% by 2020". "Overall, it is a very small effort," said Dr Stephan Singer, head of its European Climate and Energy Unit. 
The proposals will get final adoption by April-May 2009 at the latest, following negotiations between member states and the European parliament.

Congratulations to Australia

Hats off to Australia's new Foreign Minister Stephen Smith who had the guts to tell India's nuclear envoy Shyam Saran on Tuesday that Oz would not sell uranium to New Delhi unless it signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

This reverses a decision by the previous government.

India's Saran had brokered a deal with the I-don't-give-a-damn United States to provide nuclear power aid to India while allowing it to continue nuclear weapons production

He'd then got the old OZ government to agree to supply the yellow stuff, overturning a policy of selling the fuel only to NPT signatories.

Fortunately Australia's now seen sense and the world is, in theory at least, a safer place.

Uranium Blues

Building new nuclear power stations will have an impact that reaches far beyond our borders - to the places where the fuel for them is mined.

> Comment is Free article

Will new nuclear power stations be insurable?

The Government has announced its decision on nuclear power, which is SUCH a surprise!

Utility bosses such as Dr Paul Golby, CEO of E.On and Monsieur Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF proclaim they do not want or seek subsidies for new nuclear build.

Anyone who believes this probably still thinks nuclear power is "so cheap as to be hardly worth metering" (the industry's original claim).

Here's a list of questions about just a few things the poor taxpayer will probably have to stump up for:

Insurance. Nuclear plant operators have limited liability in the case of an accident. Any cost over £700m is covered by the taxpayer. Are they prepared to take on board the full insurance liabilities, which in the case of Chernobyl has already run to several tens of billions?

And are they prepared to share with any other private investors the full costs of the pre-construction safety analysis, currently covered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate using public money?

What about the costs of the UK's membership of the EU's nuclear agency, Euratom; and the International Atomic Energy Agency - both of which do promotional and safety work for nuclear? Taxpayers pay for this.

And the current Technology Strategy Board £100m competition for proposals for collaborative research and development, into low carbon tech, including nuclear power.

Or the current research done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, using taxpayers' money, on so-called Generation 4 reactor designs?

And are we expected to believe these companies will be around in any time over a few decades hence, for thousands of years, to pay for the full cost of management of the new radioactive waste produced?

The Low Carbon Kid would place money on all answers to these questions being in the negative.

Nuclear Power Consultation Flawed - Report

Business Secretary John Hutton is due to announce a decision on an expansion of nuclear energy tomorrow. But an academic report has accused its public consultation last year of being flawed and misleading.

Greenpeace says it is considering dragging the Government back to court.

"The government was in error in asking the public for a decision 'in principle', when the core 'what if' issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way, or resolved in practice," the academics from universities including Oxford, Warwick, Sussex, Newcastle, Cardiff and Manchester conclude.

"These issues include nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and nuclear proliferation, radiation waste, radiation risk and health effects, reactor decommissioning, reactor design and siting," they added.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said, "For such senior insiders to be so critical of the consultation process is a deeply troubling commentary on the Government’s approach to this issue, and as the report reveals, nuclear power could only reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions by 4% by 2025 - too little, too late.

"Our lawyers are looking at this report and will also examine the Government’s decision on new nuclear build with great interest. We won’t be rushed into a decision, but nothing has been ruled out at this stage."

The main issue for the group of academics is disposal of waste from the new nuclear plants.

"The government consultation documents said this issue had been resolved. That is simply not true," said Paul Dorfman of Warwick University, one of the report's authors.

CoRWM, the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, said in 2006 nuclear waste, which remains toxic for centuries, should be kept forever in a specially built safe storage facility deep under ground.

But while the government pointed to this as the solution to waste from any new plants, CoRWM said it only meant this solution to apply to waste from Britain's old military nuclear programme dating back to the 1950s, so called legacy waste.

The academics also accused the government of glossing over security considerations, the true costs of nuclear and alternative renewable energy sources, the availability of uranium fuel and the siting of new nuclear plants given sea level rises due to global warming.

Of course, a government green light is not actually necessary -- there is no legal barrier to any utility now opting to build a nuclear plant, although there is a lot of planning red tape.

"Although the government has said no public money will be involved in any new nuclear plants, a positive declaration must indicate government commitment in the final event and that can only mean taxpayers' money," said Dorfman.

The report notes that the new nuclear plant being built in Finland, touted by pro-nuclear adherents as a model for the way forward, is not only two years behind schedule but already 50 percent over budget, a fate it suggests would be in store for new plants in Britain, to the detriment of alternative power sources.

The Business and Enterprise Department says the Government believed the consultation was an "open, fair and full" process.

A spokesman said, "We have received 2,700 responses from the extensive consultation, which included public meetings across the UK, a written consultation document and a website. Time is pressing. Consulting indefinitely is not an option."

In Wales the Assembly Government is also sceptical about the need for new nuclear power stations - but with major energy decisions reserved to Westminster, it is powerless to block them.

Ministers in Cardiff Bay nevertheless "strongly support" an extension to the life of the Wylfa site on Anglesey, due to be decommissioned in 2010.

The site in the constituency of Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones is of "economic importance", the WAG said.

Have a low carbon Christmas!

From the Low Carbon Kid to all his readers - whatever their carbon footprint!

Peace, friendship and all the best for 2008. May 2008 be the year the drive to reduce climate change reaches critical mass.

Recommended new year's present

The Low Carbon Kid recommends - of all the boooks out right now on sustainable development:


TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ECONOMY
By Worldwatch Institute

• From car-sharing and carbon taxes to fair trade and zero-waste cities, there are many ways to reach a more sustainable global economy – the focus of this year’s State of the World
• Updated annually providing information on the latest emerging markets and opportunities, this is ‘the environmentalist’s bible’ (Times Higher Education Supplement)
• ‘Essential reading’ – The Good Book Guide

In this 25th edition of State of the World – long established as the most authoritative and accessible annual guide to our progress towards a sustainable future – the studies pay particular attention to the many innovations in economic policy and business practices that lead us towards a more sustainable global economy.

Published annually in 28 languages, State of the World is relied upon by national governments, UN agencies, development workers and law-makers for its authoritative and up-to-the-minute analysis and information. It is essential for anyone concerned with building a positive, global future.
Get it here!

The Sellafield bomber - more details

This is an update on my post of 14 December about the "Sellafield bomber".

Darren Morris was arrested by Cumbria Constabulary on Monday 9 December in Southey Walk, Egremont, West Cumbria after a "small, rudimentary explosive device" was discovered by bailiffs at the home he owns.

A bomb disposal squad was brought in and a 100-metre cordon put in place around the property. The device was taken away for forensic examination.

Morris disappeared for a couple of days but was found, arrested, then released on bail. A report is being prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service and will be presented when he attends Workington Police Station on January 28.

The police have sought information from BNFL and his employer, Hertel.

They told me that "they and are satisfied that terrorist law is not applicable in this case. The case is being considered under criminal law the facts of which will be self explanatory if they are aired at court."

They continued "Enquiries at BNFL have been made with regard to any potential security issues."

So what was he doing there?

According to Hertel, he was part of a team removing asbestos from Calder Hall, the world's first commercial nuclear power station, primarily used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is being decommissioned.

(Interestingly, the four Calder Hall cooling towers were demolished by controlled explosions as recently as Saturday 29 September 2007.)

In order to do this work he was vetted by the Defence Vetting Agency and apparently has no criminal record. His work was described as "low grade" - this work is still ongoing.

He has worked for Hertel since August 2006. Pending the investigation's results he has been suspended.

While there is a criminal investigation ongoing no one can comment further.

The Daily Mirror is the only source which says the device is "thought to be a nailbomb".

The big question is - what did he intend to do with it?

The second question that needs a response is - if he had security clearance and the device was only discovered accidentally, could he have gained further access to the site?

Calder Hall will not by now contain highly radioactive material, at least in the area Morris was working. But you do not need much radioactive material to make a 'dirty bomb'.

This incident ought to raise further disquiet about the overall danger to world security of the drive to build further nuclear power stations, let alone the quality of security at existing ones.

Is it a UFO?

Is this a flying saucer sitting in its hangar in Area 52?

Don't be silly, it's the Belgian ‘Princess Elisabeth’ research station, to be built in Antarctica by the International Polar Foundation during the summer season 2007-2008,.

It's going to be equipped with 408 solar modules from Kyocera as part of a plan to make the station the first zero-emission research facility. 

Eight wind turbines will also be installed, to generate on-site power for communication infrastructure, heating and electronics.

The Princess Elisabeth station will be exposed to the extreme Antarctic conditions, with temperatures going as low as –60°C and wind speeds reaching 250 km/h.

Such conditions demand a reliable energy supply.

Ofgem consults on distributed energy

The energy watchdog is conducting a 12-week consultation on distributed low-carbon electricity.

This is about medium-sized generation for communities and larger businesses - domestic microgeneration is being considered separately.

This is a technical document for owners and operators of distributed energy schemes, electricity suppliers, generators, distribution network operators, consumer groups, local authorities, property developers, and manufacturers and suppliers of small-scale renewable generation and CHP plant.

There will be a summary and workshop early in 2008 for non-specialists.

Deadline for response: 11 March 2008.

The document is here

Bali: what was agreed - or not

World struggles to address "the defining challenge of our time"

189 nations left the dramatic Bali talks with a commitment from all, including the US - following its U-turn only seven years too late - to the principle of "deep cuts in global emissions", and to concluding negotiations by late 2009 in Copenhagen.

The complex multistranded dialogues will aim to culminate with concrete targets.

Governments and businesses have four years to prepare before the current targets expire.

The Bali talks communicated to the world the urgency and severity of the situation. The debate over how much responsibility rich nations must accept stumbled on United States' demands that developing countries such as China make tougher commitments.

Afterwards, a relieved UNFCCC head Yvo de Boer said the deal showed global commitment and that it broke down the divide between countries with Kyoto obligations and those without.

However, the WWF said that the agreement fell short and was "weak on substance". Greenpeace said it had been stripped of the reduction targets that science and humanity demands.

What was agreed - or not:

• Adaptation: developing countries - those most affected - will manage an Adaptation Fund Board to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Cash will be available to Kyoto Protocol signees almost immediately from a 2% levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). UNFCCC estimates $40bn is needed but only $36m is now in the pot. $100m to $500m a year is required between 2008 and 2012.

• Industry: A provision for "global sectoral agreements" aimed at industries such as the paper, metals and cement industries will require major players to agree on targets to cut emissions.

• Technology transfer: a call for more financial resources and investment for developing countries on adaptation, mitigation and technology cooperation, especially for the most vulnerable.

• Deforestation: A deal to tackle emissions from deforestation (REDD) could from 2013 allow poor but forested nations to turn conservation into billions of dollars worth of carbon credits, but only if rich nations take on more stringent reductions targets.

• Carbon capture and storage: discussions postponed on this untested technology.

• HFCs: failure to agree whether controversial destruction of newly produced powerful greenhouse gases hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) should qualify for carbon credits. Factories doing this have been accused of a giant scam.

Nuclear worker arrested with bomb

A worker at Sellafield nuclear processing plant was arrested this week "on suspicion of possessing an explosive substance with intent to endanger life" after police found a homemade bomb at his home.

Neighbours were evacuated after a "small, rudimentary explosive device" was discovered at the home of Sellafield worker Darren Morris on Monday in Southey Walk, Egremont, West Cumbria.

A bomb disposal squad was brought in and a 100-metre cordon put in place around the property. The device has been taken away for forensic examination.

This is amazing news. But....

The Low Carbon Kid wonders why there have been no front page tabloid headlines screaming "Worker at Nuclear Power Station Had Bomb" or "A-Bomb Terror Plot"???

Is it because the culprit isn't Muslim or even dark skinned, so he doesn't fit the stereotype of a "dangerous terrorist"?

He's already been released on bail - why not banged up for 28 days without charge?

Furthermore, is this not proof that nuclear sites provide targets or material for terrorists? Is the media coverage muted because of the government's pro-nuclear stance?

This is the second bomb scare for a reactor site in a period of under two months.

(The first, however, at the US Palo Verde nuclear reactor site, has been queried as being possibly a pro-nuclear stunt designed to show off to visiting inspectors how good the security was!)

Bali overview

The best overview/summary of events in Bali that I've found so far is on the Spero News website.

One outcome has been in adaptation.

Funds to help poor countries adapt to climate change will be managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank; its Adaptation Fund Board will be managed by developing countries - those most affected - which own the fund.

Cash will be available to Kyoto Protocol signees almost immediiately and comes from a 2% levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

However, UNFCCC estimates $40bn is needed but only $36m is now in the pot. $100m to $500m a year is required between 2008 and 2012, it says.

Are biofuels a sustainable solution to climate change?

The new US energy bill will see a big increase in corn-produced ethanol.

The motiivation for the White House behind this is reduced subsidies for US farmers. The knock-on effects will be high corn prices for food. Fertilisers and pesticides will be used. The soil will suffer.

This is discussed in a good article published today in Indonesia, home of the climate talks.

Chinese carbon emissions - or ours?

Why should we bother about climate change when China doesn't? Because China uses our hipocrisy - and failure to act - as an excuse for its own inaction.

In this country many people say: "What does it matter what we do about climate change in the UK - our actions are dwarfed by China's emissions!"

After all, China’s annual coal production is set to double to a staggering 5 billion tonnes a year by 2030. It is also planning to move 400 million people from the country into cities over the next 30 years. Over this period it will build approximately half the new buildings in the world, and Chinese buildings are currently only a third as energy efficient as Europe's.

China is therefore key to the success of the current climate talks.

But China argues that its per capita carbon dioxide emission is much less than that of the United States and European countries, (according to Wan Gang, Minister of Science and Technology of China yesterday).

Wan Gang said his country has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent per unit of GDP during 2006-2010. But this is clearly not enough. The atmosphere cannot cope with the output of two new coal burning power stations every week for years, which China is currently building.

So is there no point in doing anything here? Yes of course, and here is one reason why: in the press release on the Chinese government's web site, announcing Wan Gang's speech, the first link below the text, under the heading " Correlative Article" is a link to the report I discussed yesterday that UK emissions have "risen by one fifth".

The Chinese government appears to be saying by putting the link here - "Put your own house in order, you developed countries - practice what you so loudly preach - before you tell us that we can't give our people the same quality of life that yours have."

But hold on. A big rise in our emissions is really because we're buying more goods from cheap sources like China.

And the Chinese love this. Here's a glimpse of the future: China is investing $30bn in a 100 square kilometre site to build the Beijing Cyber Recreation Project. Among other things this will house the infrastructure (computer server farms, electricity-generation, online banking links, transport logistics etc.) to host nine or ten virtual worlds, that will be used to direct market Chinese goods to the rest of the world. Think 3-D Amazon and more.

This will enable China - avoiding UK retail outlets and distributors - to recoup 100% of the retail price of its products. The project's chief scientist, Chi Tau Robert Lai, said that the aim was to cut out the middlemen. "A shirt made in China for £1 typically sells for £20 in Europe. We have a big manufacturing capacity." No kidding. Just imagine what that will do to British high streets, not to mention air freight impacts.

Logic therefore implies that even without the climate change imperative, Britain and Europe need to act now to protect themselves from this threat to their retail industry by becoming less reliant on goods from the far east.

Meanwhile, Wan Gang, China IS, in fact, one of the reasons why UK emissions are increasing. Perhaps you should not have posted that link on your press release after all.

And perhaps you should accept the many reasons which delegates at Bali are giving you, as to why it makes sense for China to sign up to ambitious climate-heating gas reduction targets.