In a Vote leave scenario, Anthony Hobley, financial analyst, The Carbon Tracker, says: “I don’t think it is far fetched to imagine a bonfire of environmental regulations in this country!”

 

Would a vote for Britain to leave the EU impact environmental and energy policy?

AH: I think a Brexit would create so much uncertainty around, certainly UK energy policy, and also potentially EU energy policy.

Britain has been a major player in Europe on climate change and, as a result, has been a major player globally, leveraging its power through Europe. That simply will not happen if it is out.

The UK exercises that soft power on the international stage by being incredibly influential in the European Union, and it is an important voice in the European Union on climate change.

Without it, I think there is a very good chance that it would slow down climate change policy and ambitions, not only in Europe but possibly in the UK and globally.

Do you think this government are sympathetic towards environment policy?

AH: I think they are still supportive. Perhaps not as sympathetic as they were in coalition or before, but they are supportive. Certainly supportive of our strong positions on climate change. Perhaps a bit more confused on their energy policy but maybe they are starting to understand the opportunities in clean energy.

If we have a vote to leave and we have Brexit, I fear that the people who take over the levers of power will be considerably less sympathetic to tackling climate change and to environmental policy and regulations.

I don’t think it is far fetched to imagine a bonfire of environmental regulations in this country!

About The Carbon Tracker:
The Carbon Tracker have been producing financial risk analysis looking at exposure to investors from potential “stranded assets” around specific IPCC climate change scenarios.

When FT Lex went through the research conducted by The Carbon Tracker they concluded that their analysis was robust. In recent years, and especially during and since Paris COP21, held in December 2015, significant interest in the risks posed by stranded assets has been growing among politicians, bankers and investors.

Interview conducted by Nick Breeze

 

hobley brexit800 

More posts by Nick Breeze

Earlier this week Environment Minister Michael Gove stated that he was convinced “climate change is a danger”, stating that it “is one of the biggest threats and challenges to biodiversity in the UK”.

By localising the issue to the UK, Gove seeks to belittle the global risk posed by climate change. This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief science adviser and founding director of the Potsdam Institute, Professor Schellnhuber was in London speaking at the Royal Society. When I asked him to respond to the Environment Minister’s comments he replied:  

In part 1 of this wide ranging interview, Anton Golub discusses why the world needs Lykke, the truth about financial regulators and why only 1% Initial Coin Offerings (ICO’s) they assess make it onto the exchange.

Anton Golub: The core vision of Lykke is the vision of Richard Olsen, the founder of Lykke. I am a cofounder. I met him seven years ago when I joined him for an internship.

I sat down to eat my croissant and he sat down next to me and said: “Anton, we have to completely  change the financial system. It totally doesn’t work. Everything is broken inside.”

 

Interview by Nick Breeze with Dr Natalia Shakhova and Dr Igor Semiletov

A new scientific paper published in Nature Communication Journal demonstrates that the mechanisms of destabilisation of subsea permafrost, contrary to previous claims, provide new insights into increased emissions from the worlds largest deposits of methane, that exists in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS).

The subsea permafrost has for thousands of years acted as a seal, restricting the flow of gas through the water column to the atmosphere. This paper clearly shows that permafrost degradation and the occurrence of gas migration pathways are key factors in controlling the emissions.  

 

The lady who ushered in the Paris Agreement now wants to ramp up the pace and ensure the world reaches peak emissions by 2020, leading to total decarbonisation by 2050. The whole campaign hinges on the a new report that cites 2020 as a critical milestone for stemming the effects of climate change.

Christiana Figueres is persuasive and influential but in light of recent world events that include the destabilisation of the EU as a political block, and the openly anti-climate action administration of President Trump, it is very clear that the world has changed since Paris.

READ THE COMMENT: Does Figueres interview give clues as to why we went backwards from Copenhagen to Paris?

 

Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP): 2017 Climate Change Seminar Series

Science, politics, knowledge management, innovation and markets all play a role in climate change action, but what is the role of the University of Cambridge as an ‘anchor institution’ for these? Bringing together speakers spanning the worlds of research and policy, this series of events will explore how the multifaceted aspects of climate change action can come together to help us make the right decisions for the long run.  

The window of opportunity is closing… but the price of failure is still too high!

The rate of ecological destruction is now so bad that the fate of our civilisation literally hangs in the balance. The loss of the Arctic polar ice cap, the melting from above and below of Antarctica, the culling and collapse of forests and dying oceans, failing ecosystems, our atmosphere burdened with hundreds of billions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gases, and still each week scientists report more broken links in the chains of interconnectedness that sustain each one of us, rich and poor, on this planet. Despite all this, the great human enterprise built on a foundation of carbon, rumbles on in search of new fixes.