Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1307)
Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell Use Birther Story to Smear Van Jones

Click here to view this media Brent Bozell and Sean Hannity, human pretzels. They have to be human pretzels to twist this conversation into what they did. It begins with the Paul Ryan budget and moves from there into the birther issue, one that Hannity has flogged mercilessly on every opportunity he possibly can. In a moment of faux media criticism, Hannity spreads the deck of recent birther stories spawned by his buddy Donald Trump, aided by Bachmann, Palin, and the rest of the wingnutosphere, then asks Bozell why, oh why it is that the media is so obsessed with the whole birther thing? Bozell’s response is worthy of the Most Intellectually Dishonest Twister Award of 2011. Maybe the entire decade. HANNITY: Media’s obsessed with it. Donald Trump kept saying in an interview with Stephanopoulis “I don’t want to talk about it, my campaign’s bigger than this, ask me about this, this and this” and seven times he interrupted him about the birth certificate issue. BOZELL: Sean, if you think conspiracy stories are important, let me give you one that’s even a hundred times more important. How about the suggestion that the President of the United States was complicit on the attack on 9-11? Remember all those attacks on George Bush? “Bush lied; thousands died?” That he deliberately got us into a war to profit from it from Halliburton? How about that as a conspiracy theory? Now this is a conspiracy theory that has been promoted by people like Rosie O’Donnell from ABC, and President Obama’s own green jobs czar Van Jones, who he himself has promoted this. Where are the media talking about those lugnuts? Where are the media exposing those whackjobs? They’re silent on it. But if a conservative says something, they’re all over it. So many twisters, so little time. Well, let’s begin at the beginning. The birther issue is once again in the forefront because Donald Trump and his minions have been flogging it for publicity. Sean Hannity was one of the first to step up and give him a platform to do exactly that. So if Hannity wonders why it’s such a huge big deal, I’d recommend he review his show tapes from the past 60 days or so on that “fair and balanced” network he works for. It’s once again a huge issue because there are a zillion stupid Republicans out there who actually believe this nonsense, and Fox News plays to them on a daily basis. Even Bachmann, when confronted with the actual document, could not do more than say “I take the President at his word”? WTF? The document was right there, why didn’t GSteph ask her to take the document at its word? No, no, that would kill the golden goose. Hannity’s golden goose. Let’s move on now to the truther issue, brought to us by Brent Bozell, and in particular, his smear of Van Jones, which was flogged by Hannity back in 2009, despite the fact that the signatories to that particular petition had been misled as to what they were signing. It was a smear job just like Shirley Sherrod’s smear job, and yet Bozell doesn’t hesitate to bring it up to continue to spread the perception that Van Jones is some kind of whacked-out conspiracy theorist, despite Jones’ apologies , which were conveniently left out. Remember now, Brent Bozell heads up the Media Research Center, ostensibly to keep media honest. What a joke. Let’s move on to the war “conspiracy theories”, which Bozell also shrugs off as “whackjobs”, while conflating truthers with those of us who believe the Iraq war was absolutely planned as a way to get access to Iraq’s oil fields. The truther theory and the Iraq war theory are separate and distinct. One is nonsense (truther); one is proven with government documents. Now he’s got a problem. Just this week, a British site reported the release of hundreds of memos showing that the plan was to tap into Iraq’s oil reserves after toppling Saddam Hussein. Since they have not published the documents and have a shaky reputation for journalism , let me offer up some other, more solid sites crowing over Iraq’s reserves. We have McClatchy in January, 2011 , crowing about the massive reserves being tapped. Also the Wall Street Journal in November, 2010. We have t his piece from Public Record in 2009, which quotes US government documents as saying this: The New Yorker ‘s Jane Mayer later made another discovery: a secret NSC document dated Feb. 3, 2001 – only two weeks after Bush took office – instructing NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney’s task force, which was “melding” two previously unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states” and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields .” [The New Yorker, Feb. 16, 2004] By March 2001, Cheney’s task force had prepared a set of documents with a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a list titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” according to information released in July 2003 under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. No, no, no, Brent Bozell. You might have gotten away with the whine had you not actually tried to paint the lead-in to the Iraq war as a whackjob conspiracy theory. The evidence is insurmountable on that one, and on your pet theories, not so much. The sad thing is that all those faithful Hannity viewers actually believe this crap. Facts don’t matter when they’re getting all that ‘fair and balanced’ Fox News reporting.

Continue reading …
Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell Use Birther Story to Smear Van Jones

Click here to view this media Brent Bozell and Sean Hannity, human pretzels. They have to be human pretzels to twist this conversation into what they did. It begins with the Paul Ryan budget and moves from there into the birther issue, one that Hannity has flogged mercilessly on every opportunity he possibly can. In a moment of faux media criticism, Hannity spreads the deck of recent birther stories spawned by his buddy Donald Trump, aided by Bachmann, Palin, and the rest of the wingnutosphere, then asks Bozell why, oh why it is that the media is so obsessed with the whole birther thing? Bozell’s response is worthy of the Most Intellectually Dishonest Twister Award of 2011. Maybe the entire decade. HANNITY: Media’s obsessed with it. Donald Trump kept saying in an interview with Stephanopoulis “I don’t want to talk about it, my campaign’s bigger than this, ask me about this, this and this” and seven times he interrupted him about the birth certificate issue. BOZELL: Sean, if you think conspiracy stories are important, let me give you one that’s even a hundred times more important. How about the suggestion that the President of the United States was complicit on the attack on 9-11? Remember all those attacks on George Bush? “Bush lied; thousands died?” That he deliberately got us into a war to profit from it from Halliburton? How about that as a conspiracy theory? Now this is a conspiracy theory that has been promoted by people like Rosie O’Donnell from ABC, and President Obama’s own green jobs czar Van Jones, who he himself has promoted this. Where are the media talking about those lugnuts? Where are the media exposing those whackjobs? They’re silent on it. But if a conservative says something, they’re all over it. So many twisters, so little time. Well, let’s begin at the beginning. The birther issue is once again in the forefront because Donald Trump and his minions have been flogging it for publicity. Sean Hannity was one of the first to step up and give him a platform to do exactly that. So if Hannity wonders why it’s such a huge big deal, I’d recommend he review his show tapes from the past 60 days or so on that “fair and balanced” network he works for. It’s once again a huge issue because there are a zillion stupid Republicans out there who actually believe this nonsense, and Fox News plays to them on a daily basis. Even Bachmann, when confronted with the actual document, could not do more than say “I take the President at his word”? WTF? The document was right there, why didn’t GSteph ask her to take the document at its word? No, no, that would kill the golden goose. Hannity’s golden goose. Let’s move on now to the truther issue, brought to us by Brent Bozell, and in particular, his smear of Van Jones, which was flogged by Hannity back in 2009, despite the fact that the signatories to that particular petition had been misled as to what they were signing. It was a smear job just like Shirley Sherrod’s smear job, and yet Bozell doesn’t hesitate to bring it up to continue to spread the perception that Van Jones is some kind of whacked-out conspiracy theorist, despite Jones’ apologies , which were conveniently left out. Remember now, Brent Bozell heads up the Media Research Center, ostensibly to keep media honest. What a joke. Let’s move on to the war “conspiracy theories”, which Bozell also shrugs off as “whackjobs”, while conflating truthers with those of us who believe the Iraq war was absolutely planned as a way to get access to Iraq’s oil fields. The truther theory and the Iraq war theory are separate and distinct. One is nonsense (truther); one is proven with government documents. Now he’s got a problem. Just this week, a British site reported the release of hundreds of memos showing that the plan was to tap into Iraq’s oil reserves after toppling Saddam Hussein. Since they have not published the documents and have a shaky reputation for journalism , let me offer up some other, more solid sites crowing over Iraq’s reserves. We have McClatchy in January, 2011 , crowing about the massive reserves being tapped. Also the Wall Street Journal in November, 2010. We have t his piece from Public Record in 2009, which quotes US government documents as saying this: The New Yorker ‘s Jane Mayer later made another discovery: a secret NSC document dated Feb. 3, 2001 – only two weeks after Bush took office – instructing NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney’s task force, which was “melding” two previously unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states” and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields .” [The New Yorker, Feb. 16, 2004] By March 2001, Cheney’s task force had prepared a set of documents with a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a list titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” according to information released in July 2003 under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. No, no, no, Brent Bozell. You might have gotten away with the whine had you not actually tried to paint the lead-in to the Iraq war as a whackjob conspiracy theory. The evidence is insurmountable on that one, and on your pet theories, not so much. The sad thing is that all those faithful Hannity viewers actually believe this crap. Facts don’t matter when they’re getting all that ‘fair and balanced’ Fox News reporting.

Continue reading …
Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell Use Birther Story to Smear Van Jones

Click here to view this media Brent Bozell and Sean Hannity, human pretzels. They have to be human pretzels to twist this conversation into what they did. It begins with the Paul Ryan budget and moves from there into the birther issue, one that Hannity has flogged mercilessly on every opportunity he possibly can. In a moment of faux media criticism, Hannity spreads the deck of recent birther stories spawned by his buddy Donald Trump, aided by Bachmann, Palin, and the rest of the wingnutosphere, then asks Bozell why, oh why it is that the media is so obsessed with the whole birther thing? Bozell’s response is worthy of the Most Intellectually Dishonest Twister Award of 2011. Maybe the entire decade. HANNITY: Media’s obsessed with it. Donald Trump kept saying in an interview with Stephanopoulis “I don’t want to talk about it, my campaign’s bigger than this, ask me about this, this and this” and seven times he interrupted him about the birth certificate issue. BOZELL: Sean, if you think conspiracy stories are important, let me give you one that’s even a hundred times more important. How about the suggestion that the President of the United States was complicit on the attack on 9-11? Remember all those attacks on George Bush? “Bush lied; thousands died?” That he deliberately got us into a war to profit from it from Halliburton? How about that as a conspiracy theory? Now this is a conspiracy theory that has been promoted by people like Rosie O’Donnell from ABC, and President Obama’s own green jobs czar Van Jones, who he himself has promoted this. Where are the media talking about those lugnuts? Where are the media exposing those whackjobs? They’re silent on it. But if a conservative says something, they’re all over it. So many twisters, so little time. Well, let’s begin at the beginning. The birther issue is once again in the forefront because Donald Trump and his minions have been flogging it for publicity. Sean Hannity was one of the first to step up and give him a platform to do exactly that. So if Hannity wonders why it’s such a huge big deal, I’d recommend he review his show tapes from the past 60 days or so on that “fair and balanced” network he works for. It’s once again a huge issue because there are a zillion stupid Republicans out there who actually believe this nonsense, and Fox News plays to them on a daily basis. Even Bachmann, when confronted with the actual document, could not do more than say “I take the President at his word”? WTF? The document was right there, why didn’t GSteph ask her to take the document at its word? No, no, that would kill the golden goose. Hannity’s golden goose. Let’s move on now to the truther issue, brought to us by Brent Bozell, and in particular, his smear of Van Jones, which was flogged by Hannity back in 2009, despite the fact that the signatories to that particular petition had been misled as to what they were signing. It was a smear job just like Shirley Sherrod’s smear job, and yet Bozell doesn’t hesitate to bring it up to continue to spread the perception that Van Jones is some kind of whacked-out conspiracy theorist, despite Jones’ apologies , which were conveniently left out. Remember now, Brent Bozell heads up the Media Research Center, ostensibly to keep media honest. What a joke. Let’s move on to the war “conspiracy theories”, which Bozell also shrugs off as “whackjobs”, while conflating truthers with those of us who believe the Iraq war was absolutely planned as a way to get access to Iraq’s oil fields. The truther theory and the Iraq war theory are separate and distinct. One is nonsense (truther); one is proven with government documents. Now he’s got a problem. Just this week, a British site reported the release of hundreds of memos showing that the plan was to tap into Iraq’s oil reserves after toppling Saddam Hussein. Since they have not published the documents and have a shaky reputation for journalism , let me offer up some other, more solid sites crowing over Iraq’s reserves. We have McClatchy in January, 2011 , crowing about the massive reserves being tapped. Also the Wall Street Journal in November, 2010. We have t his piece from Public Record in 2009, which quotes US government documents as saying this: The New Yorker ‘s Jane Mayer later made another discovery: a secret NSC document dated Feb. 3, 2001 – only two weeks after Bush took office – instructing NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney’s task force, which was “melding” two previously unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states” and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields .” [The New Yorker, Feb. 16, 2004] By March 2001, Cheney’s task force had prepared a set of documents with a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a list titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” according to information released in July 2003 under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. No, no, no, Brent Bozell. You might have gotten away with the whine had you not actually tried to paint the lead-in to the Iraq war as a whackjob conspiracy theory. The evidence is insurmountable on that one, and on your pet theories, not so much. The sad thing is that all those faithful Hannity viewers actually believe this crap. Facts don’t matter when they’re getting all that ‘fair and balanced’ Fox News reporting.

Continue reading …
Tonight on the Fox News Channel: ‘Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media’

Tonight (Friday) the Fox News Channel will air a Hannity special, in Sean Hannity's usual time slot, ‘Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media.’ The promo declares : “Double standards? Groundless attacks? Blatant bias? Sean calls out the mainstream media! Don’t miss Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media.” It will run for the hour at 9 PM EDT/8 PM CDT/7 PM MDT/6 PM PDT. It will re-run at midnight EDT/11 PM CDT/10 PM MDT/9 PM PDT. The Media Research Center made available to Fox News Channel producers video clips from our archive going back more than 20 years, so the program should feature a lot of examples of TV network liberal media bias from the past two decades. MRC President Brent Bozell was also interviewed for the special and should appear along with other conservatives who have battled or documented liberal media bias.

Continue reading …
Tonight on the Fox News Channel: ‘Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media’

Tonight (Friday) the Fox News Channel will air a Hannity special, in Sean Hannity's usual time slot, ‘Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media.’ The promo declares : “Double standards? Groundless attacks? Blatant bias? Sean calls out the mainstream media! Don’t miss Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media.” It will run for the hour at 9 PM EDT/8 PM CDT/7 PM MDT/6 PM PDT. It will re-run at midnight EDT/11 PM CDT/10 PM MDT/9 PM PDT. The Media Research Center made available to Fox News Channel producers video clips from our archive going back more than 20 years, so the program should feature a lot of examples of TV network liberal media bias from the past two decades. MRC President Brent Bozell was also interviewed for the special and should appear along with other conservatives who have battled or documented liberal media bias.

Continue reading …
Jerusalem wins praise on Broadway

Jez Butterworth’s play, set in Wiltshire woodland and rooted in rural Englishness, is likely to become a smash hit in America Hang out the red-cross flags, round up the morris dancers: a play so rooted in rural Englishness that some feared it might need subtitles even for Londoners looks likely to be a smash hit on Broadway. Jez Butterworth’s Jerusalem, a transfer of the Royal Court production, has received a rave review in the New York Times which reads like a publicist’s dream. Although the newspaper’s reviews are seen as deal-breakers for Broadway, its write-up has proved only part of a roar of critical acclaim for the show. Entertainment Weekly said “Jerusalem triggers goosebumps”, and New York Time Out wrote: “Anyone who cares about thrilling, world-class theatre must see Jerusalem.” Audience members were equally overwhelmed; tweets about the show include: “Go worship at the feet of Mr. Rylance. Run don’t walk”; “Mark Rylance in Jerusalem is probably the best stage performance I have ever witnessed”; “grand scale theater, mark rylance a force of nature”; and “a thrilling, mind-blowing, gorgeous reminder of why theatre rocks harder than anything else”. Dominic Cooke, artistic director of the Royal Court, was overwhelmed at the news. “We could never have predicted when Jerusalem opened in 2009 that it would go on such an incredible journey, from the Royal Court to the West End to Broadway,” he said. “Jez’s play has captured people’s hearts, and we are just thrilled for … the whole Jerusalem team that it has translated to Broadway so well.” The play, with echoes of Shakespeare’s greenwood comedies, where social norms are ripped to shreds, is set in a Wiltshire woodland where Johnny “Rooster” Byron, a swaggering, mesmerising and thoroughly unreliable dropout holds a druggy, drink-sodden and anarchic court. A Prince Hal for outcasts and Glastonbury new agers, well beyond the fringes of Middle England decencies, he defiantly claims his share of Englishness. Although the Royal Court production proved a sellout hit in London – Michael Billington called it “a perfectly judged production” in his Guardian review – and swept up awards by the armful, many worried that the play, set on St George’s Day, might prove baffling to an American audience. It would be a foreign-language play even in Berkshire: “I leave Wiltshire, my ears pop”, as one of the characters remarks. Billed as “a comic contemporary vision of rural life in England’s green and pleasant land”, the transfer to Broadway’s Music Box, with half the original cast (including Mark Rylance as Rooster and Mackenzie Crook as his sidekick), looks likely to be the hit of the season, in a run currently due to end in July. In his New York Times review of Jerusalem – headed “This Blessed Plot, This Trailer, This England” – Ben Brantley, who also gave the play a rave review when it opened in London, admitted he had had doubts about the transfer. “I was apprehensive about the show on Broadway. Jerusalem, you see, is partly a state-of-the-nation play, the nation being Britain. And the mind-set of its characters is definitely British provincial, or as provincial as the age of television and the internet allows. Yet the New York production – which retains half its original British cast and has been revised for clarity of cultural references – turns out to be rousingly accessible on these shores.” Butterworth, whose earlier play Parlour Song was also a New York hit in 2008, credited his reincarnation as a Somerset pig farmer as the inspiration for his recent string of hit plays. He told Mark Lawson: “I think the problem was that, when I lived in London, I was just too distracted. Looking back, I spent a lot of time sitting in pubs when I should have been perfecting my playwriting.” British hits on Broadway War Horse: The National Theatre’s award-winning adaptation of Michael Morpurgo’s children’s novel opened a fortnight ago on Broadway to rave reviews. Billy Elliot: The movie about a boy who yearns to dance, set against the backdrop of the 1984 miners’ strike, was an even bigger hit as a stage musical, and is still selling out on Broadway after three years. Frost/Nixon: Peter Morgan’s 2006 play based on David Frost’s interviews with Richard Nixon, originally a London hit at the tiny Donmar Warehouse, was a success on Broadway and then a hit movie. Cats: The musical with no human characters by Andrew Lloyd Webber was the fourth longest running West End musical, from 1981 to 2002, and the second longest Broadway show, from 1982 to 2000. … and British misses on Broadway Enron: Lucy Prebbles’s bitter satire on American capitalism, a major hit for the Royal Court in London, closed after two weeks on Broadway last year. Bombay Dreams: Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 2004 Bollywood musical lasted two years in London but only eight months on Broadway despite major rewrites. Chess: The 1986 musical about cold war politics played out in international tournaments, with music by Abba, ran for three years in London but just 37 performances on Broadway. Carrie: A bizarre 1988 RSC musical based on the Stephen King novel and movie had mixed reviews at Stratford-upon-Avon and survived for just five shows after the Broadway reviews. Broadway New York Theatre United States Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Coalition attacked over environment

David Cameron’s dramatic promise to lead the greenest ever government has been followed by U-turns and delayed policies Business leaders, investors and campaigners have delivered a thumbs down to the government’s record on green issues, less than a year after David Cameron announced his aspiration to lead ” the greenest government ever “. One investor said the coalition’s actions threatened to “choke off the lifeblood of the green economy” and another said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the coalition’s performance. Penny Shepherd, chief executive of UKSIF , the UK’s leading organisation representing financiers specialising in green investments, warned that the chancellor, George Osborne, had not lived up to his promise of “greening” the Treasury. “Until the Treasury is firmly and visibly behind the low carbon transition, and the shift to a green economy and green financial services, then the rest of government will inevitably struggle,” she said. The comments – after a series of U-turns and watered-down or delayed green policies – come as the government braces itself for a report next week from the CBI which is expected to criticise its record on supporting green business. Five years ago this week, Cameron’s photogenic husky ride across the snowy Norwegian island of Spitzbergen was intended to give voters a glimpse of a different kind of Tory leader and was part of his strategy of detoxifying the brand. And just three days after forming the coalition he declared that he would be the “fourth minister” at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, adding: “I mean that from the bottom of my heart.” In that speech he said that the government would back green industries to drive economic growth, adding that the UK needed to “make sure we have our share of the industries of the future”. Now, though, many of the business leaders and investors whom the government is relying on to deliver that growth are becoming increasingly frustrated. Mark Shorrock, founder of Low Carbon Group, which invests in solar, tidal and wind power, said: “The government has been shortsighted on green issues, and is threatening to choke off the lifeblood of the green economy.” Green entrepreneurs were also critical. Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, said: “I am bitterly disappointed. I was impressed by the promise to be the greenest government ever. The coalition could have created a really convincing narrative of genuine job creation but they have failed to do so.” Shepherd said: “One area of particular concern has been the changes to feed-in tariffs [subsidies for renewable energy]. It wasn’t the proposal itself, but the sudden revision that sent out the wrong signal – investors need confidence that policy will remain stable.” A recent report from respected US thinktank the Pew Environment Group appears to bear out these views. From being third in the world in green investment, the UK has tumbled to 13th place , well behind developing countries such as China, India and Brazil in the race to create green jobs and become a leader in green technology. Last year, only £2bn was invested in alternative energy and clean technology in the UK, compared with £7bn in 2009. Germany spent £26bn and the US £21bn last year. Jonathon Porritt, whose Sustainable Development Commission was axed within months of the coalition coming to power, described government performance on green issues as “really thin”. “All the possible good things are in the future. If you have to rely on [the Natural environment] white paper as an example of what is good, that’s pretty desperate. What is a white paper – just paper,” he said. The coalition’s own MPs have also expressed concern on key policies. Tim Yeo, the Conservative former minister and chair of the cross-party environmental audit committee, said: “They are making progress but there is a very long way to go. The changes to feed-in tariffs unsettled investors, undoubtedly. I think David Cameron remains committed, but there is a lot of sucking and seeing to do.” But the government strongly rejected the criticism. One Whitehall insider said: “Investors are reacting positively and recognise we’re acting for the long term.” He pointed to a survey of more than 300 UK clean technology companies, from the government-funded Carbon Trust, that found increasing confidence about their growth prospects, with more than three-quarters looking to recruit in the next 12 months and 37% planning to expand into new export markets in the next two years. Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust , said: “Our research shows that cleantech innovators are feeling optimistic about their prospects and have ambitious plans for the future. However, access to finance, along with a stable policy environment, will make or break these growth prospects.” Bob Wigley, the ex-investment banker and chairman of Yell, who drew up the blueprint for the green investment bank, told the Guardian that even in its watered down form it was a significant achievement: “I think the chancellor deserves credit for finding £3bn during this challenging period of austerity to fund a green investment bank. I guess we all look forward to hearing the detail of its mandate. But assuming the right mandate, funding and governance structure, it could be one of the coalition’s really substantive legacies, and another world-leading project that other countries will want to emulate.” Renewable UK, the trade body for the wind industry, also said it was “encouraged” by the government’s support for offshore wind. “We are hoping that the positive commitments that have been made are followed up with the right level of financial support,” a spokesman. His views have been echoed in a series of reports from parliamentary committees, which have criticised the government over the green investment bank, flood defences and air pollution. David Cameron Liberal-Conservative coalition Fiona Harvey Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Coalition attacked over environment

David Cameron’s dramatic promise to lead the greenest ever government has been followed by U-turns and delayed policies Business leaders, investors and campaigners have delivered a thumbs down to the government’s record on green issues, less than a year after David Cameron announced his aspiration to lead ” the greenest government ever “. One investor said the coalition’s actions threatened to “choke off the lifeblood of the green economy” and another said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the coalition’s performance. Penny Shepherd, chief executive of UKSIF , the UK’s leading organisation representing financiers specialising in green investments, warned that the chancellor, George Osborne, had not lived up to his promise of “greening” the Treasury. “Until the Treasury is firmly and visibly behind the low carbon transition, and the shift to a green economy and green financial services, then the rest of government will inevitably struggle,” she said. The comments – after a series of U-turns and watered-down or delayed green policies – come as the government braces itself for a report next week from the CBI which is expected to criticise its record on supporting green business. Five years ago this week, Cameron’s photogenic husky ride across the snowy Norwegian island of Spitzbergen was intended to give voters a glimpse of a different kind of Tory leader and was part of his strategy of detoxifying the brand. And just three days after forming the coalition he declared that he would be the “fourth minister” at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, adding: “I mean that from the bottom of my heart.” In that speech he said that the government would back green industries to drive economic growth, adding that the UK needed to “make sure we have our share of the industries of the future”. Now, though, many of the business leaders and investors whom the government is relying on to deliver that growth are becoming increasingly frustrated. Mark Shorrock, founder of Low Carbon Group, which invests in solar, tidal and wind power, said: “The government has been shortsighted on green issues, and is threatening to choke off the lifeblood of the green economy.” Green entrepreneurs were also critical. Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, said: “I am bitterly disappointed. I was impressed by the promise to be the greenest government ever. The coalition could have created a really convincing narrative of genuine job creation but they have failed to do so.” Shepherd said: “One area of particular concern has been the changes to feed-in tariffs [subsidies for renewable energy]. It wasn’t the proposal itself, but the sudden revision that sent out the wrong signal – investors need confidence that policy will remain stable.” A recent report from respected US thinktank the Pew Environment Group appears to bear out these views. From being third in the world in green investment, the UK has tumbled to 13th place , well behind developing countries such as China, India and Brazil in the race to create green jobs and become a leader in green technology. Last year, only £2bn was invested in alternative energy and clean technology in the UK, compared with £7bn in 2009. Germany spent £26bn and the US £21bn last year. Jonathon Porritt, whose Sustainable Development Commission was axed within months of the coalition coming to power, described government performance on green issues as “really thin”. “All the possible good things are in the future. If you have to rely on [the Natural environment] white paper as an example of what is good, that’s pretty desperate. What is a white paper – just paper,” he said. The coalition’s own MPs have also expressed concern on key policies. Tim Yeo, the Conservative former minister and chair of the cross-party environmental audit committee, said: “They are making progress but there is a very long way to go. The changes to feed-in tariffs unsettled investors, undoubtedly. I think David Cameron remains committed, but there is a lot of sucking and seeing to do.” But the government strongly rejected the criticism. One Whitehall insider said: “Investors are reacting positively and recognise we’re acting for the long term.” He pointed to a survey of more than 300 UK clean technology companies, from the government-funded Carbon Trust, that found increasing confidence about their growth prospects, with more than three-quarters looking to recruit in the next 12 months and 37% planning to expand into new export markets in the next two years. Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust , said: “Our research shows that cleantech innovators are feeling optimistic about their prospects and have ambitious plans for the future. However, access to finance, along with a stable policy environment, will make or break these growth prospects.” Bob Wigley, the ex-investment banker and chairman of Yell, who drew up the blueprint for the green investment bank, told the Guardian that even in its watered down form it was a significant achievement: “I think the chancellor deserves credit for finding £3bn during this challenging period of austerity to fund a green investment bank. I guess we all look forward to hearing the detail of its mandate. But assuming the right mandate, funding and governance structure, it could be one of the coalition’s really substantive legacies, and another world-leading project that other countries will want to emulate.” Renewable UK, the trade body for the wind industry, also said it was “encouraged” by the government’s support for offshore wind. “We are hoping that the positive commitments that have been made are followed up with the right level of financial support,” a spokesman. His views have been echoed in a series of reports from parliamentary committees, which have criticised the government over the green investment bank, flood defences and air pollution. David Cameron Liberal-Conservative coalition Fiona Harvey Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Coalition attacked over environment

David Cameron’s dramatic promise to lead the greenest ever government has been followed by U-turns and delayed policies Business leaders, investors and campaigners have delivered a thumbs down to the government’s record on green issues, less than a year after David Cameron announced his aspiration to lead ” the greenest government ever “. One investor said the coalition’s actions threatened to “choke off the lifeblood of the green economy” and another said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the coalition’s performance. Penny Shepherd, chief executive of UKSIF , the UK’s leading organisation representing financiers specialising in green investments, warned that the chancellor, George Osborne, had not lived up to his promise of “greening” the Treasury. “Until the Treasury is firmly and visibly behind the low carbon transition, and the shift to a green economy and green financial services, then the rest of government will inevitably struggle,” she said. The comments – after a series of U-turns and watered-down or delayed green policies – come as the government braces itself for a report next week from the CBI which is expected to criticise its record on supporting green business. Five years ago this week, Cameron’s photogenic husky ride across the snowy Norwegian island of Spitzbergen was intended to give voters a glimpse of a different kind of Tory leader and was part of his strategy of detoxifying the brand. And just three days after forming the coalition he declared that he would be the “fourth minister” at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, adding: “I mean that from the bottom of my heart.” In that speech he said that the government would back green industries to drive economic growth, adding that the UK needed to “make sure we have our share of the industries of the future”. Now, though, many of the business leaders and investors whom the government is relying on to deliver that growth are becoming increasingly frustrated. Mark Shorrock, founder of Low Carbon Group, which invests in solar, tidal and wind power, said: “The government has been shortsighted on green issues, and is threatening to choke off the lifeblood of the green economy.” Green entrepreneurs were also critical. Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, said: “I am bitterly disappointed. I was impressed by the promise to be the greenest government ever. The coalition could have created a really convincing narrative of genuine job creation but they have failed to do so.” Shepherd said: “One area of particular concern has been the changes to feed-in tariffs [subsidies for renewable energy]. It wasn’t the proposal itself, but the sudden revision that sent out the wrong signal – investors need confidence that policy will remain stable.” A recent report from respected US thinktank the Pew Environment Group appears to bear out these views. From being third in the world in green investment, the UK has tumbled to 13th place , well behind developing countries such as China, India and Brazil in the race to create green jobs and become a leader in green technology. Last year, only £2bn was invested in alternative energy and clean technology in the UK, compared with £7bn in 2009. Germany spent £26bn and the US £21bn last year. Jonathon Porritt, whose Sustainable Development Commission was axed within months of the coalition coming to power, described government performance on green issues as “really thin”. “All the possible good things are in the future. If you have to rely on [the Natural environment] white paper as an example of what is good, that’s pretty desperate. What is a white paper – just paper,” he said. The coalition’s own MPs have also expressed concern on key policies. Tim Yeo, the Conservative former minister and chair of the cross-party environmental audit committee, said: “They are making progress but there is a very long way to go. The changes to feed-in tariffs unsettled investors, undoubtedly. I think David Cameron remains committed, but there is a lot of sucking and seeing to do.” But the government strongly rejected the criticism. One Whitehall insider said: “Investors are reacting positively and recognise we’re acting for the long term.” He pointed to a survey of more than 300 UK clean technology companies, from the government-funded Carbon Trust, that found increasing confidence about their growth prospects, with more than three-quarters looking to recruit in the next 12 months and 37% planning to expand into new export markets in the next two years. Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust , said: “Our research shows that cleantech innovators are feeling optimistic about their prospects and have ambitious plans for the future. However, access to finance, along with a stable policy environment, will make or break these growth prospects.” Bob Wigley, the ex-investment banker and chairman of Yell, who drew up the blueprint for the green investment bank, told the Guardian that even in its watered down form it was a significant achievement: “I think the chancellor deserves credit for finding £3bn during this challenging period of austerity to fund a green investment bank. I guess we all look forward to hearing the detail of its mandate. But assuming the right mandate, funding and governance structure, it could be one of the coalition’s really substantive legacies, and another world-leading project that other countries will want to emulate.” Renewable UK, the trade body for the wind industry, also said it was “encouraged” by the government’s support for offshore wind. “We are hoping that the positive commitments that have been made are followed up with the right level of financial support,” a spokesman. His views have been echoed in a series of reports from parliamentary committees, which have criticised the government over the green investment bank, flood defences and air pollution. David Cameron Liberal-Conservative coalition Fiona Harvey Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Coalition attacked over environment

David Cameron’s dramatic promise to lead the greenest ever government has been followed by U-turns and delayed policies Business leaders, investors and campaigners have delivered a thumbs down to the government’s record on green issues, less than a year after David Cameron announced his aspiration to lead ” the greenest government ever “. One investor said the coalition’s actions threatened to “choke off the lifeblood of the green economy” and another said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the coalition’s performance. Penny Shepherd, chief executive of UKSIF , the UK’s leading organisation representing financiers specialising in green investments, warned that the chancellor, George Osborne, had not lived up to his promise of “greening” the Treasury. “Until the Treasury is firmly and visibly behind the low carbon transition, and the shift to a green economy and green financial services, then the rest of government will inevitably struggle,” she said. The comments – after a series of U-turns and watered-down or delayed green policies – come as the government braces itself for a report next week from the CBI which is expected to criticise its record on supporting green business. Five years ago this week, Cameron’s photogenic husky ride across the snowy Norwegian island of Spitzbergen was intended to give voters a glimpse of a different kind of Tory leader and was part of his strategy of detoxifying the brand. And just three days after forming the coalition he declared that he would be the “fourth minister” at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, adding: “I mean that from the bottom of my heart.” In that speech he said that the government would back green industries to drive economic growth, adding that the UK needed to “make sure we have our share of the industries of the future”. Now, though, many of the business leaders and investors whom the government is relying on to deliver that growth are becoming increasingly frustrated. Mark Shorrock, founder of Low Carbon Group, which invests in solar, tidal and wind power, said: “The government has been shortsighted on green issues, and is threatening to choke off the lifeblood of the green economy.” Green entrepreneurs were also critical. Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, said: “I am bitterly disappointed. I was impressed by the promise to be the greenest government ever. The coalition could have created a really convincing narrative of genuine job creation but they have failed to do so.” Shepherd said: “One area of particular concern has been the changes to feed-in tariffs [subsidies for renewable energy]. It wasn’t the proposal itself, but the sudden revision that sent out the wrong signal – investors need confidence that policy will remain stable.” A recent report from respected US thinktank the Pew Environment Group appears to bear out these views. From being third in the world in green investment, the UK has tumbled to 13th place , well behind developing countries such as China, India and Brazil in the race to create green jobs and become a leader in green technology. Last year, only £2bn was invested in alternative energy and clean technology in the UK, compared with £7bn in 2009. Germany spent £26bn and the US £21bn last year. Jonathon Porritt, whose Sustainable Development Commission was axed within months of the coalition coming to power, described government performance on green issues as “really thin”. “All the possible good things are in the future. If you have to rely on [the Natural environment] white paper as an example of what is good, that’s pretty desperate. What is a white paper – just paper,” he said. The coalition’s own MPs have also expressed concern on key policies. Tim Yeo, the Conservative former minister and chair of the cross-party environmental audit committee, said: “They are making progress but there is a very long way to go. The changes to feed-in tariffs unsettled investors, undoubtedly. I think David Cameron remains committed, but there is a lot of sucking and seeing to do.” But the government strongly rejected the criticism. One Whitehall insider said: “Investors are reacting positively and recognise we’re acting for the long term.” He pointed to a survey of more than 300 UK clean technology companies, from the government-funded Carbon Trust, that found increasing confidence about their growth prospects, with more than three-quarters looking to recruit in the next 12 months and 37% planning to expand into new export markets in the next two years. Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust , said: “Our research shows that cleantech innovators are feeling optimistic about their prospects and have ambitious plans for the future. However, access to finance, along with a stable policy environment, will make or break these growth prospects.” Bob Wigley, the ex-investment banker and chairman of Yell, who drew up the blueprint for the green investment bank, told the Guardian that even in its watered down form it was a significant achievement: “I think the chancellor deserves credit for finding £3bn during this challenging period of austerity to fund a green investment bank. I guess we all look forward to hearing the detail of its mandate. But assuming the right mandate, funding and governance structure, it could be one of the coalition’s really substantive legacies, and another world-leading project that other countries will want to emulate.” Renewable UK, the trade body for the wind industry, also said it was “encouraged” by the government’s support for offshore wind. “We are hoping that the positive commitments that have been made are followed up with the right level of financial support,” a spokesman. His views have been echoed in a series of reports from parliamentary committees, which have criticised the government over the green investment bank, flood defences and air pollution. David Cameron Liberal-Conservative coalition Fiona Harvey Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …